Labor's carbon tax lie

[bellenuit]

Poll in today's SMH;

Poll: Are you more likely to support a carbon tax now petrol is excluded?
Yes
32%
No
68%
Total votes: 3352.Poll closes in 18 hours.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-is-coming-20110703-1gxcs.html#ixzz1R7I5EYD6

IMO, that is a ridiculous poll question because one cannot draw any conclusions of value from the result.

For instance, a NO answer doesn't imply the person is against a carbon tax. The person could have all along been in favour of a carbon tax and if excluding petrol hasn't influenced that person's opinion in any way...... his/her correct response to the question would be NO. If limited to only those who previously were against the tax, one mighty get some idea whether excluding petrol has led to a change in sentiment.

Those who answer YES could be people who were 100% against it now only being 90% against and those who were 90% for it now being 100% for it. Both of these groups still haven't changed their basic opinion re the tax.

 

[trainspotter]

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - SUNDAY 10th JULY 2011

After months of negotiations and a drip-feed of selected information the Federal Government will finally reveal the full details of its carbon tax and trading scheme this Sunday.

It says while some parts are still to be worked out, enough progress has been made in the negotiations with the Greens and independents to seal the deal this week.

The Opposition says if that's the case the Government should be releasing the information in the next few days before Parliament rises for a five week break.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3260985.htm


Convenient that it cannot be deabted for 5 weeks in parliament eh?

 

[Calliope]

IMO, that is a ridiculous poll question because one cannot draw any conclusions of value from the result.

Exactly. Hence the disclaimer;

Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

Note the word "visitors". Most of the SMH readership are rusted on lefties, and as such, would blindly follow Gillard.

 

[bellenuit]

Exactly. Hence the disclaimer;



Note the word "visitors". Most of the SMH readership are rusted on lefties, and as such, would blindly follow Gillard.

Calliope, in addition to the disclaimer and that it was only open to visitors, I would argue that the poll had little value due to the nature of the question itself.

 

[Calliope]

Calliope, in addition to the disclaimer and that it was only open to visitors, I would argue that the poll had little value due to the nature of the question itself.

Who cares, Belle?



JULIA Gillard will unveil her government's carbon price policy this Sunday.

Surely the "policy" should include the reason for the carbon tax. Five will get you ten she won't divulge the truth, which is that she is joining with the Greens to disadvantage our industries and also redistribute the wealth as an added bonus.

 

[drsmith]

With petrol, Tony Windsor was only standing up for his rural constituents. He obviously figures the rest of us can go to hell. Hardly an appropriate stance for what is a national change.

Mr Windsor was pivotal in having fuel excluded from the carbon price, but he has revealed he unsuccessfully argued to have a fuel levy for city-dwellers.

Tony,

What happens to the petrol exclusion when you no longer have the balance of power ?

 

[Smurf1976]

I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.

In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.

http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/

Meanwhile, you can keep track of your state's CO2 intensity for power generation here. http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/cdeii.html

 

[nioka]

I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.

In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.

http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/

]

That page wouldnt open for me but I did get a story on:

www.energybulletin.net/node/50874

 

[derty]

I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.

In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.

http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/

Meanwhile, you can keep track of your state's CO2 intensity for power generation here. http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/cdeii.html

Cheers Smurf. I always assumed that as we have a few hundred years of coal reserves left peak coal at least was a ways off, but peak coal in 2027 and peak global energy in the mid 2030's is pretty sobering. That means peak global GDP in the mid 2030's unless something drastically changes between now and then.

 

[Logique]

..In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable..http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/..

Also China's share will increase, as countries like Australia export energy demanding industries, and there are the additional energy costs of return freighting manufactured goods.

Strong argument for fast tracking new generation nuclear energy plants I'd have thought. Especially if there were to be a breakthrough on cold fusion.

China’s Imminent Collision With Peak Coal (link in post above)
This is a guest post by Dr. Minqi Li. Dr. Li was a political prisoner in China from 1990 to 1992. He received a PhD in economics from University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2002..

"..In 2010, China overtook the United States to become the world’s largest energy consumer. China now accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s energy consumption and about 25 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions..
..China depends on coal for 70 percent of the energy supply. If China’s coal production slows down dramatically and eventually declines in the coming years, China’s economic growth (and by implication global economic growth) will be severely constrained..."

 

[joea]

Hi
I am getting a little lost or is the carbon tax to be announced on Sunday turning into a "merry go round".
It is expected a $20 -$25 carbon tax to tax polluters.
But now the unions are upset because of loss of jobs in the coal industry so $1.275 bullion of emergency funds will be available to help protect jobs and compensate coal powered power stations for the carbon tax.

Gee no wonder the media have apparently refused to give free media coverage to Gillard unless Abbott has time on air as well on Sunday.

And why are they spending money to promote the carbon tax in the next few weeks?
I would have thought after Sunday we will all be a "full two bobs "worth of knowledge.
joea

 

[springhill]

Gillard now gets the TWU offside, there were angry calls from hard-core labor voting truckies to Paul Murray's morning show yesterday, vowing not to vote labor again and threatening 'go-slow' campaigns.
Expect damaging recourse from the TWU!

We all know Australia depends on trucks, and an extra cost on heavy transport is an extra cost on EVERYTHING. That should bode well for inflation.

http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/74580.aspx

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ppose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226088387890

Not to mention they could have hostile Senators, Glenn Sterle and Alex Gallacher, on their hands.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top...-corner-truckies/story-e6frg12l-1226088591511

 

[noco]

Gillard now gets the TWU offside, there were angry calls from hard-core labor voting truckies to Paul Murray's morning show yesterday, vowing not to vote labor again and threatening 'go-slow' campaigns.
Expect damaging recourse from the TWU!

We all know Australia depends on trucks, and an extra cost on heavy transport is an extra cost on EVERYTHING. That should bode well for inflation.

http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/74580.aspx

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ppose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226088387890

Not to mention they could have hostile Senators, Glenn Sterle and Alex Gallacher, on their hands.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top...-corner-truckies/story-e6frg12l-1226088591511

And don't forget the 10% of all carbon dioxide tax collections will go to the UN Climate Change Committee of which Rudd is a member. I wonder if this will be mentioned in Gillards speech on Sunday morning. Labor never ever mentions this.

 

[sails]

And don't forget the 10% of all carbon dioxide tax collections will go to the UN Climate Change Committee of which Rudd is a member. I wonder if this will be mentioned in Gillards speech on Sunday morning. Labor never ever mentions this.

Agree Noco - and Gillard did NOT refute the claim when asked by Julie Bishop in parliament - droned on about everything but not the 10%.

Be warned, don't run the video if you can't stomach the ever winded droning and traffic signals...:

 

[moXJO]

SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well, it is the way to go. The Greens have recently rescued the proposals for base load solar power stations, which will go in rural and regional Australia to make sure they are progressing.... We want this country to be at the cutting edge. I repeat, the example is firm and true. In Germany, where they did this because the Greens were in the balance of power, they have created 350,000 jobs. It was the strongest component of the German economy during the recent recession. It’s good economics.

Saw this image and had to laugh

 

[drsmith]

Some interesting speculation the ABC's 7:30 Report tonight.

According to Chris Uhlmann, big business will be locked out of any carbon tax excemption on fuel by increasing other taxes/reducing rebates by 6 cents/litre with the funds (`$4bn) to be used to compensate other industries for the carbon tax itself.

According to Chris, this revenue raised will effectively be outside the carbon tax itself and therefore compromises Labor's revenue neutrality argument.

 

[sails]

Anything requiring so many lies, backflips and connivings should be treated with much scepticism and suspicion...

How this can possibly be "the right thing to do" for this country is absolutely beyond me.

We can only hope there is one Labor MP who cares enough about his/her country to do the honourable thing and do what is necessary to force a new election. That person would be remembered in history as a hero by the majority of Australian people, imo.

 

[Knobby22]

I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.

In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.

http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/

Meanwhile, you can keep track of your state's CO2 intensity for power generation here. http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/cdeii.html

Geez that's scary.

 

[Smurf1976]

Geez that's scary.

My main reason for posting that link can be explained by this analogy.

You have a party on Saturday night with 20 guests. You buy 2 cartons of beer, two bottles of wine, a few cans of coke and a bag of chips.

Now that you're at the party, the ultimate outcome should be pretty clear. ALL the alcohol, soft drink and chips will be consumed with the only question being by whom. Every beer you don't drink, every chip you don't eat, will simply be drunk or eaten by someone else instead because available supply is less than demand.

Regardless of individual views on peak oil, I think most would agree that we're not likely to ramp up production sufficiently to enable China and India to consume oil at Western rates. Even if the oil exists, we're just not likely to actually ramp up production to that extent - there's too many wars, too many practical and economic issues etc.

So the oil supply is fixed and, according to that article which does seem very plausible looking at the actual ramp up in production in China, coal is going to suffer similar constraints in the not too distant future.

For both oil and coal, the limit is going to be how fast we can get the stuff out of the ground, not how much we actually want to burn. That being so, any debate about CO2 emissions is a debate about where and for what purpose the coal and oil is burnt. We're going to burn all we can, all that's left to be decided is who burns it (Australia? China? US? etc) and for what purpose (cars? electricity? aircraft? etc).

Now, in terms of the climate this makes no difference whatsoever. The only practical effect is who burns the fuel, and whether it's for cruising the streets or sitting at home watching Simpsons re-runs. If CO2 is going to cook the planet then it's going to happen either way.

If your aim is to reduce CO2 emissions then restricting production seems the only rational approach given that consumption seems set to equal all that we are physically able to produce. We're just not going to be in a situation where production is reduced on account of there having been a reduction in consumption. The other way around seems a far more likely reality.

A carbon tax on consumption in individual countries is pointless in the extreme - it does not in any way reduce the production of fossil fuels and their overall consumption globally. It may well influence who uses the fuel and for what purpose, but it does zero to benefit the climate (assuming you accept that CO2 does cause global warming - I'm not arguing that point either way right now).

 

[sails]

And Swan has no intention of easing up on coal:

From the Australian: Wayne Swan quashes 'alarmist claims' ahead of carbon price package release

Treasury modelling reportedly predicts strong growth for the coal industry despite introduction of the tax.

Under an indicative $20 carbon price, coal exports and production - although lower than without a tax - would still double during the next 40 years, Fairfax said of the yet-to-be-made-public modelling.