Labor's carbon tax lie

[Starcraftmazter]

I read about an Australian market gardener who said that with glass houses, to gain maximum plant growth he pumps in CO2 to a level of 1000ppm, and contrasts this with the warmists insistence that if CO2 levels reach 500ppm it's catastrophic for the planet.

How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (killing many of said plants in the process).

 

[medicowallet]

How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (killing many of said plants in the process).

I do not know, but does the IPCC report factor in increased carbon trapping from increased plant growth?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I do not know, but does the IPCC report factor in increased carbon trapping from increased plant growth?

I don't know, does it factor in South American rainforests which stored carbon for so long getting chopped down at an alarming rate?

 

[matty77]

I don't know, does it factor in South American rainforests which stored carbon for so long getting chopped down at an alarming rate?

but dont worry a carbon tax will stop the trees getting chopped down...

 

[sptrawler]

If the government wants to reduce emmisions why don't they legislate that all offices, shopping centres and any commercial building that runs airconditioning and lights 24/7. Have to install L.E.D lights and alternative enegy e.g solar or wind to cover the energy demand of the building.
Just drive into any city or country town centre at night and check out the lights that are running 24/7.
Why can't the government instruct the ACCC to check out why the ridiculous price for solar hot water systems, if there was ever a case of collusion and price fixing that has to be it.
Why can't they legislate to demand an improvement on fuel economy of all cars sold in Australia.
No it is better to put a tax on polluters that is passed on to you and me in the form of increased costs and or loss of your job.
Because that way the government gets more money whether or not it makes a differenence to the reduction of emmisions. Then they can spend it or in the case of this government throw it away anyway they like.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

If the government wants to reduce emmisions why don't they legislate that all offices, shopping centres and any commercial building that runs airconditioning and lights 24/7. Have to install L.E.D lights and alternative enegy e.g solar or wind to cover the energy demand of the building.
Just drive into any city or country town centre at night and check out the lights that are running 24/7.
Why can't the government instruct the ACCC to check out why the ridiculous price for solar hot water systems, if there was ever a case of collusion and price fixing that has to be it.
Why can't they legislate to demand an improvement on fuel economy of all cars sold in Australia.
No it is better to put a tax on polluters that is passed on to you and me in the form of increased costs and or loss of your job.

I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.

Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.

 

[sptrawler]

I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.

Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.

Well we will have to agree to dissagree over the job situation, time will tell who is correct.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Well we will have to agree to dissagree over the job situation, time will tell who is correct.

This may well be difficult, I am sure some companies will use this as an opportunity, as an excuse to shut down plants which they were going to shut anyway.

 

[sptrawler]

This may well be difficult, I am sure some companies will use this as an opportunity, as an excuse to shut down plants which they were going to shut anyway.

Yes that would be because they are marginal at best add to the costs with increased tax and energy costs, yes that would do it.
Because Australia is such a small market place there is no advantage value adding here other than if it is cheaper because of input costs. Get rid of that and it becomes cheaper to produce offshore and import to Australia as it is a small market therefore unit shipping costs go down as well as labour input costs.
I certainly hope your new technology jobs come on line fast and are labour intensive (that would be novel) because there will be a lot of retail, power industry and manufacturing workers just gagging for a job.
But they will be o.k because they won't have to pay tax on their wages from Maccas`and K.F.C .
The other good thing is if your a professional or a mine worker your increased marginal tax rate will help cover the increase unemployment benefits

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Yes that would be because they are marginal at best

Then they will inevitably shut down anyway, it makes no difference.

I certainly hope your new technology jobs come on line fast and are labour intensive (that would be novel) because there will be a lot of retail, power industry and manufacturing workers just gagging for a job.
But they will be o.k because they won't have to pay tax on their wages from Maccas`and K.F.C .

The speed of their arrival equates to the political action required to create them. Also get rid of all the immigrants in those industries you mentioned, that will remove a lot of the problem.

 

[Calliope]

I thought this was brilliant.

Laborwocky

‘Twas bullshig, and the slimy coves
Did conspire wi’ greenies in the wabe
All loony were the ministers
And the tax-take outgrabe

Beware the Juliar, my son!
The jaws that fib, the claws that snatch!
Beware the Bob-Bob bird, and shun
The disastrous Carbontax!

The people took the matter in hand
Long time democracy they sought
So rested all by the Hyperbowl
And stood awhile in thought

And as in uffish thought they stood
The Laborwock, with hair of flame
Came waffling through the tulgey wood
And burgled as she came!

“Co2, yer through, yer through!”
The Economy fell on its back
She chopped off its head, and then she said
“Our reforms are right on track”

But how do we slay the Carbontax?
The voters replied, “Boy, oh boy
On polling day! Callooh! Callay!”
They chortled in their joy

‘Twas bullshig, and the slimy coves
Did conspire wi’ greenies in the wabe
All loony were the ministers
And the tax-take outgrabe

(apologies to Lewis Carroll)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...lueprint_for_labors_next_leader/#commentsmore

 

[moXJO]

I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.

Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.

Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy.
Loss of 2.2 jobs to every green job created, is that correct?

JULIA Gillard has upheld the renewable energy sector in economically-devastated Spain as an example of the potential transformation of Australia's energy mix under her carbon tax.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/shaky-spain-an-energy-example-julia-gillard/comments-e6frg6xf-1226098330805

 

[sails]

but dont worry a carbon tax will stop the trees getting chopped down...

But problem is not solved. I understand that rotting vegetation is also putting co2 into the atmosphere and then what if there is a bushfire? Them burning trees are going to emit massive amounts of co2.

It's hard to believe how a government can think their constituents are so stupid...

 

[drsmith]

I'm wary of anything, any government attemps to bring in on a lie.

The bigger the lie, the greater my skepticism. A lie on major tax reform is almost as big as it gets.

 

[Ruby]

How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (killing many of said plants in the process).

Perhaps you haven't heard my friend........... plants need CO2 to survive. Ever heard of photosynthesis? No? It's the process by which plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.

CO2 is not going to "completely change the climate of our planet"! Where did you read that nonsense? That sort of scaremongering is so ridiculous and shows the level of your ignorance.

(My bolds)

 

[drsmith]

Tony Windsor is relying on the Coalition to get elected at the next election and repealing the carbon tax on fuel for heavy transport that will commence in 2014 under Labor's plan.

''It's probably unlikely that the Labor Party will get re-elected at the next election,'' he said. ''I couldn't see Tony Abbott introducing a carbon price on the heavy vehicle fuel users.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/windsor-loyal-to-doomed-gillard-20110719-1hneq.html#ixzz1SdfZEhAx

Well Tony,

If it's that important, why haven't you negotiated it out of the package alltogether ?

 

[Smurf1976]

Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy.

I'm no expert on Spain's power grid but a quick Google search reveals that they are mostly reliant on conventional generation sources (coal, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear) as is the rest of the world. Wind is a major source at times (when the wind is blowing...) but overall the conventional sources are still the major means of power generation in Spain.

Looking at various charts, their electrical generation seems to have followed a pattern that is fairly typical in the Western world. Heavy reliance on oil in the 1970's was replaced in a hurry (due to the soaring oil price at the time) with coal and nuclear plus some temporary over-production (draining the lakes) of hydro. Then there was a shift to increased use of gas in the 90's, and more recently wind has become significant. That general pattern is pretty much the global average for developed countries over the years.

In any event, nobody in their right mind would be holding Spain up as an example in economic policy right now.

 

[Julia]

I'm wary of anything, any government attemps to bring in on a lie.

The bigger the lie, the greater my skepticism. A lie on major tax reform is almost as big as it gets.

Agree. Even their describing a greenhouse gas as 'pollution' is false and insulting to the electorate.
Sadly, some continue to be taken in.

CO2 is not going to "completely change the climate of our planet"! Where did you read that nonsense? That sort of scaremongering is so ridiculous and shows the level of your ignorance.

(My bolds)

+1.

Tony Windsor is relying on the Coalition to get elected at the next election and repealing the carbon tax on fuel for heavy transport that will commence in 2014 under Labor's plan.
Well Tony,
If it's that important, why haven't you negotiated it out of the package alltogether ?

Exactly. What a hypocrite.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy.
Loss of 2.2 jobs to every green job created, is that correct?

It would take a significant amount of time to research the Spanish economy and all the factors in play. I have doubts you did this, rather than jumping to some arbitrary conclusion which suits your own opinions.

Either way, I don't have the time to conduct such research, thus I choose not to comment.

Perhaps you haven't heard my friend........... plants need CO2 to survive. Ever heard of photosynthesis? No? It's the process by which plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.

What exactly has this got to do with global warming? You understand that there is a balance of gasses in the Earth atmosphere, and CO2 needs to occur at a certain proportion...

I suppose you think it would be great if we had 100% CO2?

Can I ask what scientific degrees you hold and with which universities?

 

[wayneL]

What exactly has this got to do with global warming? You understand that there is a balance of gasses in the Earth atmosphere, and CO2 needs to occur at a certain proportion...

And what, in your opinion, are those proportions? Upper and lower limits please.

I suppose you think it would be great if we had 100% CO2?

Argumentative fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously, refrain from this.

Can I ask what scientific degrees you hold and with which universities?

Which degrees do you have relative to the discussion?