wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,015
- Reactions
- 13,351
You mean the propaganda?
The real issue is atmospheric pollution in all forms. Beats me why they play these stupid games though. Might be some sort of wake up call before things do get worse.
AUSTRALIA will be embracing "unilateral economic disarmament" if it adopts a carbon tax, says the key US Republican congressman on climate change.
In a devastating judgment for the Gillard government's carbon tax plans, Jim Sensenbrenner told The Australian the US had turned its back on a carbon tax.
Mr Sensenbrenner said cap and trade - the US term for an emissions-trading scheme - was "dead in the US".
"Any kind of direct carbon tax is dead in the US," he said.
Mr Sensenbrenner's comments point to the possibility that generalised pledges on climate change action by other countries will not be realised, whereas the report by the government's adviser, Ross Garnaut, takes all such pledges at face value.
It is Professor Garnaut's assessment that allows Canberra to claim other nations are taking action on climate change.
Mr Sensenbrenner said he did not believe carbon taxes would ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"It just changes where they take place," he said, "and this doesn't make any real difference because there are no customs posts in the atmosphere."
I am often amazed at how labor supporters seem to have no idea of the real meaning of "democracy". They seem to think it's just all about the two party preferred electoral system - which does not always reflect the will of the people.
Here you go, IFocus - I think this is what Drsmith is talking about:
Meaning of DEMOCRACY from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
I'm completely amazed how Labor detractors seem to have no idea that the actual system of government we use in Australia is a representative/parliamentary democracy instead of a direct democracy. They seem to think it's just all about the will of the people - which does not always reflect the best interests of the country.
I'm completely amazed how Labor detractors seem to have no idea that the actual system of government we use in Australia is a representative/parliamentary democracy instead of a direct democracy. They seem to think it's just all about the will of the people - which does not always reflect the best interests of the country.
This sums up my thoughts the tax is labors honey pot and little to do with the environment. All those green jobs they keep talking about won't end up here it will end up in China.
A senior strategist for the Democratic Party in Washington has confirmed that neither Mr Obama nor congressional Democrats would campaign for a carbon price in next year's presidential and congressional elections.
"Economic disarmament" describes Gillard's tax exactly. There is little doubt that America has given carbon pricing the flick. The Republicans won't have a bar of it, and in the same article;
This has pulled the rug out from under Gillard. However it won't faze the greens. All their efforts are geared toward Australia committing "economic disarmament.'"
Sounds so sensible, doesn't it, springhill! And it's my bet that if the government had proposed this, simply explaining that the budget had taken a hit with the floods etc, on top of the stimulus payments, and that therefore, very sadly, an increase in the GST was necessary in order to maintain a high quality of education, medical, infrastructure services, the population would have grizzled for a week or two, and then just accepted it, much as we did with the original GST.A thought occurred to me today, don't we, by the way of a GST, already have a carbon tax? GST is a consumption tax. Consumption comes at the end of a manufacturing process, manufacturing causes pollution (ie. carbon production). Pollution causes climate change.rolleyes
Couldn't Labor, in it's infinite wisdom, add 5% to the GST, set that 5% aside from revenue and put it into eco-friendly matters such that they have been promoting? You consume, you pay.
Is that really too complicated?
Some might say that is taxing the people not those nasty polluters, but make no mistake, as with GST manufacturers WILL pass costs on, whether it's a GST or a carbon tax.
An interesting article, and the comments following it are well worth a read also.When, in the interest of all Australians will this Prime Minister of ours start telling the truth about what other nations are doing on a carbon dioxide tax instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/a-lethal-blow-for-government-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226082376158[/url]
Yesterday she insisted the carbon tax was the right thing to do. "It's the equivalent of saying 'eat your vegetables', I suppose," she told Sydney radio.
Not necessarily.Irrespective of what we desire or what the polls say we will be getting a carbon tax on July 1st when the Greens have the balance of power in the senate come July 1st.
The Greens are playing a high-stakes game as negotiations over the carbon tax enter the final leg. The choice is between compromising in order to achieve a tax or once again wrecking Labor's proposal just as in 2009, when they rejected Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme. The Greens seem to be laying the groundwork for both -- agreeing to a tax but criticising it so comprehensively that they destroy any hope of Labor containing the issue politically.
The Greens' push for more money for renewables as part of the government's carbon tax package reveals their efforts to have a foot in both camps. Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has argued for more money to be spent on renewable energy technologies, even though the Productivity Commission has exposed the inefficiency of such subsidies. It found the state and commonwealth schemes have cost billions of dollars for little result, with schemes such as state-based feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar costing between five and 10 times as much as a market-based scheme to cut the same amount of CO2 emissions.
Australian carbon taxed business competing against non carbon tax business in other countries? Bit tough I envisage.
This seems a reasonable point, given the mess in Europe. Anything I've read about the European ETS/carbon tax has suggested it has largely been a failure, rife with rorting.The collapse of the European Carbon Tax scheme last week might be the start of the whole Climate Change demise. If so Gillard's stance is untenable. The Greens will have to get a scheme approved immediately as evidence suggests the envelope has closed and further extensions will just play into Abbott's hands. With Europe close to bankruptcy, there is no doubt the alarmists are in a losing battle. You watch the scientists come out of the woodwork with changed views, such as we need more CO2 for more trees to make oxygen.
A new carbon tax, if set at $25 a tonne, will raise more tax from liable Australian companies in its first three months than the European Union's emissions trading scheme has generated since its launch more than six years ago.
Think about that. The proposed carbon pricing scheme in the country that accounts for 1.4 per cent of global emissions is going to generate more tax revenue in three months than the scheme in the European trading bloc that accounts for 14 per cent of global emissions has generated in more than six years.
The other carbon pricing scheme most frequently cited by the Gillard government as evidence of global action is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which applies to power plants in 10 northeastern states of the US. These states, including New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, account for almost 20 per cent of the US economy, about three times the size of the Australian economy, and about 4 per cent of global emissions. The present carbon price in this scheme is just $1.89. How much tax has been raised by this scheme during the two years of its operation? About $790 million, according to a program review published a few weeks ago. In short, the proposed Australian carbon tax will raise more revenue in its first month (July next year) than the US regional scheme has generated since it started in January 2009. Yet legislators in New Hampshire are threatening to withdraw from the scheme, citing adverse effects on their local economy
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?