Labor's carbon tax lie

[Julia]

When Gillard says the tax will hit the "big polluters", she obviously means the consumers of electricity. She will do her best not to alienate those in the socio-economic level who would normally vote Labor, with reimbursements that exceed their rising power costs.

I've taken her comment to be mean the big companies, i.e. miners and energy producers, you know, those people who are responsible for much of whatever prosperity this country is currently enjoying.
She should be careful about badmouthing these people who are running successful and necessary businesses.
Stupid cow.

The scene is set for this incompetent government to totally mismanage this exercise, with much of the taxpayers' money going to the wrong people.

Agree.

The following is an extract from an article in the "Courier Mail" today:

QUEENSLAND households will be penalised with higher power prices for keeping their air-conditioners off over summer.

The state's electricity price regulator, the Queensland Competition Authority, has announced a 6.6 per cent increase in power prices from July 1.

The increase will add $120 to the average bill of households already under pressure from an array of cost increases.

Power prices have now soared by more than 60 per cent since the State Government promised deregulation of the industry in the southeast would put downward pressure on prices.

Almost 80 per cent of the increase was blamed on growing network costs, the price passed on to consumers for building and maintaining the power system to cope with increasing demand.

However, lower than expected power consumption over the disaster-affected summer meant distributors did not recoup their investment costs.

Whacko! What a great reward for everyone who conscientiously exchanged their air conditioning for discomfort in the summer just past.
It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!

This whole nonsense just gets worse and worse.

 

[noco]

Every time I hear the words CARBON DIOXIDE TAX it remains me of that soapie "DAYS OF OUR LIVES"; it just seems to go on and on and on with more lies about saving the planet.
As Andrew Bolt writes, it turns out to be one big 'CON' job to raise more taxes for the Labor Party to make up for all the waste of tax payers money over th past 4 years.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_if_the_science_is_sound_why_these_lies/

 

[ghotib]

I've taken her comment to be mean the big companies, i.e. miners and energy producers, you know, those people who are responsible for much of whatever prosperity this country is currently enjoying.
She should be careful about badmouthing these people who are running successful and necessary businesses.
Stupid cow.

Why don't you find out whether your assumption is right before calling her stupid? Seems to me she's not the Julia who's doing the badmouthing.

It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!

This whole nonsense just gets worse and worse.

Badmouth the Federal government because the State govt. deregulated the industry? Blame a Federal tax that doesn't yet exist for the 20-year failure of State govts and private companies to maintain and extend the power distribution system.

Maybe we'd all be better off if people stopped banging their heads and started using them.

Ghoti

 

[tothemax6]

This deadly pollutant should be TAXED to the eyeballs ! Look what it does to plants !

Amen, trainspotter.
This has been overlooked by both sides of the debate - how will we survive when the world is being taken over by rampaging triffids!

 

[Julia]

Why don't you find out whether your assumption is right before calling her stupid? Seems to me she's not the Julia who's doing the badmouthing.

She has made it quite clear that she is referring to the big miners and energy producers when she has declared they will be the ones to pay. (conveniently omitting, of course, that they will pass on every cent to consumers.)
And ghoti, I retain the right to think what I will of the Prime Minister. She is hardly covering herself with glory. Equally, if you are delighted with her then that's your right and is fine with me.

 

[Smurf1976]

Whacko! What a great reward for everyone who conscientiously exchanged their air conditioning for discomfort in the summer just past.
It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!

The National Electricity Market (NEM) was never intended to minimise cost or maximise economic efficiency, a point that was clearly noted in industry publications as far back as 1993. Indeed if you read carefully, a loss of economic efficiency is in fact stated, albeit in disguised terms in the context of CO2 emissions, as one of the key aspects and "benefits" of the market. Remeber this was 18 years ago...

Bottom line today is that the industry is not focused on cost minimisation. Generators are focused on trading whilst distributors are focused on extracting maximum revenue via regulators. Where once there were senior engineers running the show, now there are Spot Traders and their ilk calling the shots (often to the detriment of sound technical operation by the way, something that adds even more costs). In short, the industry has been taken over by bankers and speculators (surprise, surprise...).

Prior to deregulation, Australia had the 3rd cheapest electricity in the OECD beaten only by Canada and New Zealand, both of which have the advantage of heavy reliance on cheap hydro-electricity. In terms of generation from fossil fuels, we were doing very well in terms of low cost and high technical efficiency.

Whilst it's only a modest source of energy in Australia, we did pretty well with hydro-electricity too. Both of the two major Australian systems, the Snowy and the Tasmanian systems, are world class in terms of engineering. Plenty of world first engineering in both, and that continued right up to the end of dam construction in the early 1990's .

Meanwhile, the SECV (Vic) was long associated with much progress in the use of brown coal. As with the Snowy and Tasmanian hydro schemes, Victoria's brown coal operations were also world class at the time.

Then along came the great deregulation. Out went the proper engineering, in came recycled power plants from overseas, drastic cuts to maintenance, lack of investment in generation, and the endless propping up of ancient plants that were good in their day but are an embarassment now.

Then a decade after that began the great cost surge as the proverbial chickens came home to roost in the distribution system and a fortune was spent. Now we've done so many silly things with generation, transmission, distribution and retail tariffs that there's basically no chance of turning the clock back...

Carbon tax? Well let's just say that an ETS amounts to yet another artificial market (like the National Electricity Market) for the traders / bankers to spend their days playing with at the expense of producers, consumers and the real economy. If these people were really concerned about CO2 then they'd get rid of the "competitive" NEM which of itself has significantly increased CO2 emissions and lowered power plant technical efficinecy (ie more fuel burned to produce a given output due to inefficient, inconsistent operation).

 

[Ruby]

The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?" All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on. That is what business does.

It's all confusing nonsense. The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path. I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.

 

[Knobby22]

I so agree with you Smurf re: deregulation of the power industry.
The other problem is that before deregulation, the power industry would do what they were told. Now they fight the regulators and influence the politicians to achieve their aims.

I'm not thrilled about the way this carbon tax is going. I am sure there are better ways such as applying a fixed amount to certain industries only. I have no faith in free market trading of artificial markets that can be played.

 

[Calliope]

The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?" All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on. That is what business does.

It's all confusing nonsense. The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path. I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.

The tax is really an exercise in wealth distribution, to lock in the votes of "working families."

ANYONE who thinks the proposed carbon tax is mainly about the environment is mistaken. That may have been where the debate started. But due to political pressure on the minority government, it has morphed into an exercise in wealth redistribution, not environmental action. And Labor has many environmental groups and advocates fooled.

Because Labor can't afford to lose seats at the next election (in fact, it needs to win seats to gain a majority), but also has to be seen to be doing something as a government, it is trying to convince voters it is acting on the environment while also compensating them for that action to a point where the action itself becomes meaningless.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ruins-carbon-tax/story-e6frg9if-1226066755699

 

[Knobby22]

I wonder if it will gain votes?

I agree that it will have less effect on consumer behaviour but it never would have had much. I also agree some social engineering such as poor people being protected will occur.

The scheme really is about encouraging new power stations to be able to compete with the old brown coal power stations, however as it has tried to be everything to everyone it will only be partially successful with the cost of public servants and gatekeepers lowering the efficiency of the Australian economy.

The Australian editors article is deliberately misleading though, which shouldn't come from an editors hand. Typical of that publication.

 

[Glen48]

Lord Mungton? claims to get 10% reduction over 10 years of carbon emmisions will decrease global warming by 1/ 20,000 of 1 C.

 

[trainspotter]

Classic tax redistibution by stealth.

Prof Garnaut recommended lifting the tax-free threshold to $25,000 but called for a cut-off point for tax relief for individuals earning more than $80,000 a year.

Prof Garnaut claimed this group - more than 1.5 million people - would be no worse off under the changes but did not say if they would be compensated for cost-of-living rises caused by a carbon tax.

The suggested carbon threshold would be a double hit to families on more than $150,000, who have already been frozen out of indexation for family tax benefits following the federal budget, if they were not compensated.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/tax-ti...ut/story-fn8qmzek-1226066915435#ixzz0pfzW1voP

 

[Knobby22]

Lord Mungton? claims to get 10% reduction over 10 years of carbon emmisions will decrease global warming by 1/ 20,000 of 1 C.

Lord Mungton dodgy as they come and a con artist. Even the climate change skeptics in Aussie Stock forums know he is a fraud. He changes graphs and gets paid to lie.

The British made a documentary laughing at us dumb hick Aussies for taking him seriously. He is a joke in his own country.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1816194.html
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change

The idea that anyone should take Lord Monckton seriously is treated with puzzlement in his native UK. Former Conservative MP John Gummer, who was Mrs Thatcher’s environment minister, commented to the ABC in March that Lord Monckton “ isn't taken seriously by anybody.” He added: “I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come (to Australia).”



Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says a recent claim by Lord Monckton that Europe’s emissions trading scheme had doubled the cost of electricity was “utter rubbish”. Analysis by the UK’s electricity regulator ofgem in March showed that environmental costs amounted to just eight per cent of energy costs for consumers.

“I am amazed that anybody in Australia takes Monckton seriously,’’ says Mr Ward. “He is not a scientist, but the deputy leader of a fringe UK political party. Frankly his credibility in the UK has sunk to near-zero since the broadcast of a documentary on the BBC earlier this year, during which Monckton was filmed on his last hilarious visit to Australia."

So what is the motivation of the mining industry in Australia to support climate change denial of any kind? Do they fear that climate legislation such as a carbon price will simply hurt their bottom line? Do they see a public confused or apathetic about climate change as a potent part of their lobbying efforts in Canberra?

Who knows? But as the donation plate for the Lord Monckton 2011 Denial Tour is passed around their offices they should ask themselves this: Can we fool the Australian public a second time?

 

[noco]

Lord Mungton dodgy as they come and a con artist. Even the climate change skeptics in Aussie Stock forums know he is a fraud. He changes graphs and gets paid to lie.

The British made a documentary laughing at us dumb hick Aussies for taking him seriously. He is a joke in his own country.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1816194.html
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change

The idea that anyone should take Lord Monckton seriously is treated with puzzlement in his native UK. Former Conservative MP John Gummer, who was Mrs Thatcher’s environment minister, commented to the ABC in March that Lord Monckton “ isn't taken seriously by anybody.” He added: “I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come (to Australia).”



Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says a recent claim by Lord Monckton that Europe’s emissions trading scheme had doubled the cost of electricity was “utter rubbish”. Analysis by the UK’s electricity regulator ofgem in March showed that environmental costs amounted to just eight per cent of energy costs for consumers.

“I am amazed that anybody in Australia takes Monckton seriously,’’ says Mr Ward. “He is not a scientist, but the deputy leader of a fringe UK political party. Frankly his credibility in the UK has sunk to near-zero since the broadcast of a documentary on the BBC earlier this year, during which Monckton was filmed on his last hilarious visit to Australia."

So what is the motivation of the mining industry in Australia to support climate change denial of any kind? Do they fear that climate legislation such as a carbon price will simply hurt their bottom line? Do they see a public confused or apathetic about climate change as a potent part of their lobbying efforts in Canberra?

Who knows? But as the donation plate for the Lord Monckton 2011 Denial Tour is passed around their offices they should ask themselves this: Can we fool the Australian public a second time?

I would sooner believe in Monkton and Bob Carter thesis than Tim Flannery who has already been proved wrong in his predictions.

 

[sails]

The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?" All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on. That is what business does.

It's all confusing nonsense. The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path. I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.

Agree on both counts, Ruby. Business will, of course, pass the costs on. Will they also put a profit margin on top of those costs? That's also what business does.

And Julia Gillard is not making any sense with this carbon tax. If it is a real problem, how about the big polluting countries do something? But then that's not a question that Basilio wants to answer on the other thread...

The "believers" (who actualy deny reality, imo) seem so caught up in their preferred version of "science" that they can't seem to see just how futile it is for Australia to risk the economy for Gillard's pet tax which is looking more and more like a wealth redistrubtion than anything remotely to do with carbon reduction.

Pensioners are already becoming scared to put heaters on and are shivering their way through winter. How much worse is it going to get for them? Oh, that's right, Gillard has promised compensation - but I wonder how long she will keep that promise? Her track record of keeping promises isn't crash hot...

 

[IFocus]

That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL

Religious leaders back carbon tax

Monks and rabbis have stood alongside Catholics and Anglicans in Canberra to show support for the federal government's plan to tackle climate change.

Leaders from the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) met Prime Minister Julia Gillard in support of the carbon tax today.

Anglican representative George Browning said the group wanted to assist politicians to create good legislation and the message to Ms Gillard was that the issue was a moral one.


He said caring for the environment was at the core of all faiths and agreed with former prime minister Kevin Rudd that the issue was the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-carbon-tax-20110602-1fie4.html#ixzz1O76oukaw

 

[the phantom]

That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL

Religious leaders back carbon tax



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-carbon-tax-20110602-1fie4.html#ixzz1O76oukaw

lol, when do people start believing news from TV , radio, newspapers or internet (especially when quoting organizations) .

Also Politicians always tell the truth , " I did not have sexual relations ....".

No context, out of context, obstructed ... I watch the news for entertainment it is ... pure sensationalism. The news is like wearing a tie version of Jerry Springer, but behind a desk or publication.

 

[Julia]

That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL

Religious leaders back carbon tax

Monks and rabbis have stood alongside Catholics and Anglicans in Canberra to show support for the federal government's plan to tackle climate change.

Leaders from the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) met Prime Minister Julia Gillard in support of the carbon tax today.

Anglican representative George Browning said the group wanted to assist politicians to create good legislation and the message to Ms Gillard was that the issue was a moral one.


He said caring for the environment was at the core of all faiths and agreed with former prime minister Kevin Rudd that the issue was the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Oh for god's sake, when we get down to babbling about what religious leaders say or think, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Given their nonsensical basis for existence in the first place, why on earth would anyone take any notice of what they think about anything????
Pathetic.

 

[the phantom]

That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL

Religious leaders back carbon tax

Oh for god's sake, when we get down to babbling about what religious leaders say or think, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Given their nonsensical basis for existence in the first place, why on earth would anyone take any notice of what they think about anything????
Pathetic.

Especially when not backed up by authorities from the larger religious or other organizations being suggested ... anyone being part of the general group, could start another organisation within a massive organisation, and mention their other membership to try to have status ... does not mean it is a statement of the overall group.

 

[Smurf1976]

I so agree with you Smurf re: deregulation of the power industry.
The other problem is that before deregulation, the power industry would do what they were told. Now they fight the regulators and influence the politicians to achieve their aims.

Hazelwood is often cited as Australia's most polluting power station (thought I'd argue that Playford B isn't exactly great either). The SECV had firm plans to close Hazelwood by 2005, replacing it with a more efficient station. In the hands of private operators, it'll still be running flat out well after 2020.

Meanwhile another well known plant that I'd better not name often operates so as to achieve an alternator (generator) output well below boiler output. In other words, they can't turn the boilers down below about two thirds of rated capacity but they wish to drop the plants output far lower at peak times so as to force other plants online (more pollution...) and force up prices. The end result is that they keep feeding coal into the boilers at a rapid rate, much of it (and consequent CO2) going to waste as the steam is dumped rather than being used to generate electricity. It's comparable to opening the windows at home because it's getting a bit warm inside whilst leaving the heater running flat out - totally unncecessary waste.

Two major examples of CO2 emissions that just wouldn't be happening if the industry hadn't been deregulated.

I'm not against private investment in energy per se, indeed you could have a 100% privately owned utility. What I'm against is the creation of an unnatural market that delivers little apart from opportunities for speculative trading whilst creating havoc with actual production.