Labor's carbon tax lie

[Smurf1976]

The big problem with using gas as base load fuel is, as smurf said, the rate that you go through it.
It is too versatile a fuel to be throwing through turbines to make electricity. Which then goes over the transmission system, with all it's losses to end up in the kitchen boiling water in a kettle or electric heaters etc. It makes much more sense to boil the water directly with the gas.
The other point is Gillard goes on about the carbon reduction is like taking 140mllion cars off the road. Well they wouldn't have to be taken off the road if they were running on gas. The whole transport industry could run on gas.
Like I said it is criminal to throw such a precious fuel through turbines to make electricity, they had better be sure of their science because if it is proven wrong they are doing Australia and the world a huge disservice

To put some figures on it:

Australian fuel reserves:

Coal = 1,245,400 PJ
Gas = 138,280 PJ
Oil = 24,126 PJ (includes LPG and condensate)

Given that oil is limited (globally) and that gas is the only real substitute we have, it seems almost criminal to even consider wasting it to generate electricity.

There's also the economic factors. 40 years ago we used oil to generate electricity and heat houses. Then the world realised that oil is rather useful for all sorts of things more important than firing boilers and priced it accordingly. The same will almost certainly happen with gas as it replaces oil as fuel for vehicles etc. It will end up far too expensive to burn for electricity just as oil did.

Coal comprises a massive 88.4% of our fossil fuel reserves but only accounts for 42% of fuel consumption.

Oil comprises just 1.7% of our fuel reserves but amounts to 35% of fuel consumption. The math tells the story - this is a problem.

Natural gas is 9.8% of reserves, and comprises 23% of consumption as well as being the only real replacement for oil. Once you factor in the fact that most of our gas is planned to be exported, and that we need gas to replace oil in the future, then it's nowhere near as abundant as many seem to think.

Looking at the figures, it would seem outright crazy to use oil or gas in a low value application (baseload electricity generation) where coal could be used instead. It's not as though we can easily use coal at home in the kitchen or run aeroplanes with it once the oil and gas has all been used up.

 

[springhill]

10% of Carbon Tax going to the UN, i wonder how many of the drones in suburbialand actually know about this?

Why is Gillard not talking about the elephant in the room?
No recent news articles about it, sounds like they don't want to talk about it.

Where is China's, the US' and India's green tax contribution coming from?
I'm starting to think Australia is a little fruity, we just love bending over and taking it in the ass.

Abbott should be all over this like a rash.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

 

[Calliope]

Greg Sheridan in the Australian yesterday;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-damage-economy/story-e6frgd0x-1226094147407

IF ever there were a single country in the entire world spectacularly unsuited to be the sole imposer of a vast, unprecedented carbon tax, which no other country in the world is remotely duplicating, it is Australia.

Isolated from our strategic friends, far distant from our biggest markets, a member of no natural trading bloc or customs union, we have just one serious, competitive advantage in the global economy.

That is the abundance of our fossil fuel endowments. If ever there were a nation well advised to move slowly and carefully on policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we are it.

As Productivity Commission head Gary Banks commented: "It will not be efficient from a global perspective [let alone a domestic one] for a carbon-intensive economy, such as ours, to abate as much as countries that are less reliant on cheap, high emission, energy sources . . . Modelling aside, it's common sense that achieving any given level of abatement is likely to be costlier in a country with a comparative advantage in fossil fuels."

This argument is irrefutable. When you apply it to the carbon tax the case for the tax falls over. QED.

Abbott needs no other argument.

 

[sails]

10% of Carbon Tax going to the UN, i wonder how many of the drones in suburbialand actually know about this?

Why is Gillard not talking about the elephant in the room?
No recent news articles about it, sounds like they don't want to talk about it.

Where is China's, the US' and India's green tax contribution coming from?
I'm starting to think Australia is a little fruity, we just love bending over and taking it in the ass.

Abbott should be all over this like a rash.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

Julie Bishop TWICE asked the PM in question time about this and twice she got loads of waffle and absolutely nothing about the 10%. So it seems the PM did not refute it and never did answer the question even though the question was repeated.

There is a youtube on it. Have posted it several times so won't embed again. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3OLKsQ83k

And yet she cries like a baby when not too many believe her spin any more.

 

[Logique]

Aussiejeff, control of the media and the stiffling of free speech is the idiology of this GREEN/LABOR SOCIALIST LEFT GOVERNMENT.

(Repeating what I said on another thread today) We saw former PM Keating on Lateline last night, opining that someone should 'judo chop' Tony Abbott. The luvvies can get away with that sort of language, along with saying that 'deniers' should be tattooed and gassed.

 

[sails]

...Abbott needs no other argument.

I think the coalition would be wise to scrap it. Gillard and her cohorts are using Abbott's direct action plan to make their's look better. I have heard sums of around $100 billion dollars bandied around and that it will be worse than Gillard's tax. All fear mongering, imo, but it would be better if the coalition backed right off and said they will wait until there is better consensus between scientists.

Even IF the AGW scientists are right, what's the point of applying a political solution to a climate problem? Surely the same scientists should be coming up with solutions that are not politcally and taxed based and certainly nothing to do with fleecing Aussies to prop up the UN.

And, I think the other problem for Abbott is that coalition MPs are somewhat divided on the issue of AGW. Turnbull is clear in his differences, so I suspect that some MPs are still being fooled by the AGW "science" that seems to come mostly from scientists on government pay rolls.

Here is a video of Tim Ball who is also one of the independent advisers for the Galileo Movement (Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are involved) who is pointing out, from his experience, the futility of carbon tax to help the environment: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

 

[sails]

Sails, I doubt very much that Ms Gillard thinks this is the right thing to do at all....

Julia, maybe she doesn't think it, but it is what she is saying. It seems to be her current response to her falling polls that "it is the roight thing to do for ooorstrahlia" in her patronising voice.

No matter if she says it or thinks it, it is no more than HER opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

But what gives her the right to enforce her opinion over the opinions of around 60% of Aussies?

 

[springhill]

Climate change scams have started already (I mean apart from the one the Govt is peddling).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...started-watchdog/story-fn99tjf2-1226094905098

Just waited until seriously organised crime syndicates sink their teeth into this.
Czechoslovakia anyone?

 

[Smurf1976]

Just waited until seriously organised crime syndicates sink their teeth into this.

I'm sure we're all confident that no "funny business" will go on with the trading. You know, nobody will create anything false or anything like that in a market where nobody can prove that what they just bought ever did or will exist and which relies totally on honesty. No, these people are absolutely 100% reliable, totally unlike those who throughout recorded history have tried to make an easy profit.

A lot of money is going to be made and lost over this scheme.

 

[sails]

I'm sure we're all confident that no "funny business" will go on with the trading. You know, nobody will create anything false or anything like that in a market where nobody can prove that what they just bought ever did or will exist and which relies totally on honesty. No, these people are absolutely 100% reliable, totally unlike those who throughout recorded history have tried to make an easy profit.

A lot of money is going to be made and lost over this scheme.

But the average tax payer is going to be the biggest loser while banks and other countries play around with our hard earned cash.

It is not much different being robbed - except this robbery is going to be legislated unless something can be done to stop it...

If Gillard took this to an election and got a mandate from the people by winning a majority of seats, then it has been chosen democratically.

When one woman imposes a controversial tax she promised pre-election she would not impose and then proceeds to impose it without a mandate, it is akin to robbery, imo.

 

[Julia]

Climate change scams have started already (I mean apart from the one the Govt is peddling).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...started-watchdog/story-fn99tjf2-1226094905098

Just waited until seriously organised crime syndicates sink their teeth into this.
Czechoslovakia anyone?

Sigh.
This will be just the first of many.
And that's before the financial wizards rip off the system with fancy new derivative products.

 

[trainspotter]

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Accountants to administer the tax implications for one. Lawyers and Solicitors to "fight" the terminology of CO2 as a pollutant. Can't wait for the banks to start trading carbon permits when the ETS starts in 2015.

You ain't seen nothin' yet,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet,
Here's something that you never gonna forget,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet.

Bachman Turner Overdrive

 

[Wysiwyg]

Sigh.
This will be just the first of many.
And that's before the financial wizards rip off the system with fancy new derivative products.

Would you like one of my hats with a solar powered fan mounted on the brim? I imported 50000 from China. Me sell you, good price.

 

[Julia]

Would you like one of my hats with a solar powered fan mounted on the brim? I imported 50000 from China. Me sell you, good price.

Not sure quite how I have gathered enough strength to reject this wonderful offer, but sadly you haven't sold me.

Obviously, you're being facetious here, but I reckon it won't be long before many such nonsensical products are actually out there.

 

[wayneL]

Y

You ain't seen nothin' yet,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet,
Here's something that you never gonna forget,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet.

Bachman Turner Overdrive

Ahhh the nostalgia, Not Fragile.

 

[noco]

The claim that Climate Change is man made through carbon dioxide is a load of "CRAP".

As the link below explains this carbon (dioxide) tax is fatally flawed. It is an absoulte scam.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226094872101

 

[drsmith]

I might be wrong, but I believe he still thinks AGW (as distinct from just 'climate change') is crap. He has in his own way, just like Ms Gillard, been held hostage to the politically acceptable middle line and accordingly offered a policy which, when the Coalition is elected, will be easily reversible.

More easily adaptable might be a better term.

I suspect Julia Gillard possibly still had ideas of pricing carbon dioxide during the last election campaign but was not overly committed. She did make some noises in that direction, but when/how and subject to public opinion all up in the air. Her people's forum (or whatever it was to be) would have perhaps looked at that.

Bob Brown however wanted to price carbon this term. He stated a carbon tax would be introduced during this term during the election campaign. I suspect Julia Gillard agreed to price carbon before the election (perhaps during the dying days of the campaign) as Adam Bandt offered his support to Labor as early as election night.

In other words, I suspect that Julia Gillard was initially undecided on pricing carbon during the election campaign with when/how and possibly even if up in the air. "No carbon tax under a government I lead" strongly suggests to me that her intention was not to commence a carbon price this term.

Some commentators consider Julia Gillard a good negotiator, but she's got nothing on Bob Brown. How the Greens talked Labor into it's present pickle on Carbon Pricing is beyond me. Blind Freddy can see the difficulty in walking away from "No carbon tax under a government I lead". The Greens have conned Labor into doing the heavy lifting and they are sinking under the weight.

Labor has traded too much power to the Greens for office and for that, they will ultimately pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

 

[sails]

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Accountants to administer the tax implications for one. Lawyers and Solicitors to "fight" the terminology of CO2 as a pollutant. Can't wait for the banks to start trading carbon permits when the ETS starts in 2015....

Also, what about new government departments to administer the carbon tax. And this showed up in the NZ Herald: Carbon trading has its risks - Here's a paragraph:

"A new body called the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will determine companies' carbon price liabilities and operate the national register of emissions units, and work alongside the Climate Change Authority headed by former Reserve Bank chief Bernie Fraser. "​

Lots of high salaried jobs for the boys - I wonder if they will lower their power use...

 

[trainspotter]

Not sure quite how I have gathered enough strength to reject this wonderful offer, but sadly you haven't sold me.

Obviously, you're being facetious here, but I reckon it won't be long before many such nonsensical products are actually out there.

LOL ..... too late Julia. They already exist.

 

[trainspotter]

Also, what about new government departments to administer the carbon tax. A new body called the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will determine companies' carbon price liabilities and operate the national register of emissions units, and work alongside the Climate Change Authority headed by former Reserve Bank chief Bernie Fraser.

Lots of high salaried jobs for the boys - I wonder if they will lower their power use...

Did I tell you the government is exempt? As one of the top 10 polluters of this country they will be paying NIL towards a carbon tax. Oooooopsies. Your'e not even allowed to know who the top 500 companies are either. Shhhhhhhhhhhh it's a secret.

DYOR. I have already posted links to this fact.