Labor's carbon tax lie

Knobby22 · 23 July 2011

Logique said:
Heaven forbid we should criticize Germany, a stronghold of the Green movement. And of course every opportunity must be taken to take cheap shots at the US.

.

It's not a cheap shot, its a failure of leadership.
Yours was a cheap shot saying that the "green revolution" has caused Europe's failures. It's obviously many factors.

And I agree with Smurf's statement that we should be encouraging heavy industry in Australia, I would rather our politicians look to German policies rather than US policies. It is sad when we get a world first like CFU and German's encourage the manufacturing plant to be built there while outr politicians are happy to see this occur.

Dash8 · 23 July 2011

The carbon tax is a good thing.

It's going to force big companies to think up new solutions to cut down their carbon emissions as well as the average household. It means that new technologies will be developed faster and sustainable ways of producing power will become cheaper (like solar panels). How is that bad?

As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy. Maybe people should stop bashing our government and go do something constructive that will actually achieve something. Julia only makes around $400'000 per year, compared to many CEOs who make that in three weeks....

Perhaps the CEOs could invest some of their money back into their companies to develop new, sustainable ways of running their businesses.

I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......

Dash

IFocus · 23 July 2011

Knobby22 said:
And I agree with Smurf's statement that we should be encouraging heavy industry in Australia, I would rather our politicians look to German policies rather than US policies. It is sad when we get a world first like CFU and German's encourage the manufacturing plant to be built there while outr politicians are happy to see this occur.

Germany invest and focus on technology its in there DNA hence they have grown their manufacturing base and we buy the smarts.

Australia invest and focus on breaking rocks and sending them to China / Japan its in our DNA.

We are not even smart enough to take the social dividend

I wonder what Abbott will do to change that............SFA

drsmith · 23 July 2011

Dash8 said:
As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy.

Everyone going crazy because the government has violated the trust of the people with this tax. It is the sword upon which Gillard Labor has mortally wounded itself.

drsmith · 23 July 2011

IFocus said:
Germany invest and focus on technology its in there DNA hence they have grown their manufacturing base and we buy the smarts.

Australia invest and focus on breaking rocks and sending them to China / Japan its in our DNA.

We are not even smart enough to take the social dividend

I wonder what Abbott will do to change that............SFA

A carbon dioxide price is an artifical cost which will damage our international competitiveness and hence manufacturing.

In relation to the potential of so-called renewable energy technologies, that's an artificial market created by governments with the stroke of a pen and can be removed by governments with the stroke of a pen.

A carbon credit is not a tangable product. It is an artificial cost impost on another product.

Julia · 23 July 2011

Dash8 said:
The carbon tax is a good thing.

It's going to force big companies to think up new solutions to cut down their carbon emissions as well as the average household.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the reality that many households are already unable to pay their power bills and have cut their use as much as possible.
What's your answer for these people? That it's just tough, and they should eat cold food and do without hot showers and heating in winter?

It means that new technologies will be developed faster and sustainable ways of producing power will become cheaper (like solar panels). How is that bad?

Where is your evidence that this will actually happen? Further that it will happen sufficiently successfully to replace the baseload power currently supplied by coal fired electricity?

As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy. Maybe people should stop bashing our government and go do something constructive that will actually achieve something.

Such as? Again, you are totally ignoring the reason for most people's anger about this tax, i.e. that Ms Gillard promised "There will be no carbon tax in the government I lead" before the election, thus persuading people to vote for her on this basis, and then she subsequently - in order to dance to the tune of the Greens - has introduced just such a tax.
I cannot think of a greater moral betrayal of the public confidence.

Julia only makes around $400'000 per year, compared to many CEOs who make that in three weeks....

So???? What is the relevance of this?
At least most CEO's know what they are doing and produce some concrete positive results.

Perhaps the CEOs could invest some of their money back into their companies to develop new, sustainable ways of running their businesses.

Are you saying they are not already doing this?
Further, they are being paid to run their companies for the profitability of their shareholders. Why should they, any more than any other individual, be expected to make a personal contribution to any government initiative?

I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......

Given this statement, I expect you will have no trouble in justifying the considerable economic disadvantage the carbon tax will cause for Australia against its competitors?

Just a few questions there for you, Dash. Look forward to some reality and facts instead of the airy fairy "let's save our planet" stuff.

Smurf1976 · 23 July 2011

Dash8 said:
I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......

My objection to it is the relocation of Australian manufacturing offshore for no gain whatsoever to the environment.

That is my reason for objection to this tax - I object to putting Australians out of work for no benefit to the environment or economy.

If it worked as you suggest and was simply a matter of us each paying a few $ and benefiting the planet then I wouldn't have a real problem with it. But with the vast majority of emissions to simply be relocated offshore rather than actually reduced as such, putting a huge number of people out of work and destroying entire towns economcially, it is nothing more than a con.

Whyalla may well "thrive on wind" as the Greens claim. But someone is still going to be making the steel presently produced there thus making any shutdown of the Australian steel (or other) industry completely pointless so far as the environment is concerned.

Smurf1976 · 23 July 2011

An article worth reading. In short, it seems the sun has more effect on the Earth's temperature than previously thought and this claim is from what appears to be a credible source. http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/

Unrelated to that, one thing I've noticed here is that those opposed to this tax are basing their argument on facts and figures (whether they are accurate or not is not my point here) whilst those on the other side are basing their argument on emotion.

That has been the pattern in just about all the major environmental debates over the years from dams to mines to mills to a carbon tax. One thing has been has been pretty consistent - those on the pro-development side have argued based on engineering, science and so forth whilst those on the other side have argued largely based on emotion (especially visual images). History shows that those with the emotion and photos usually win these debates.

If those opposed to the tax want to win then, in all seriousness, it's time to drop the facts and logic which has been a losing strategy in these debates since the 1970's. Drop the facts and start using emotion - that's how the other side does it.

Ruby · 24 July 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
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 guess that means the answer to my question to you (post 1195) is NO - you don't know what photosynthesis is, or understand the role played by CO2 in the life cycle.

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

What an utterly foolish thing to say!

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

No you can't. It's entirely irrelevant. You don't need a degree to know what photosynthesis is; I learned about it in primary school!

Logique · 24 July 2011

Smurf1976 said:
An article worth reading. In short, it seems the sun has more effect on the Earth's temperature than previously thought and this claim is from what appears to be a credible source. http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/

From that piece: "..The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small."

From: http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/
You Call This ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change? by Joe Bast on July 7, 2011

".. (13) What of the claim that “97% of climate scientists believe in AGW”? The origin of this spurious claim is a 2009 online survey of scientists by two University of Illinois professors who claimed to have found that 75 out of 77 climate scientists (yes, only 77 climate scientists!) answered yes to this question......Regarding the sample size … according to Lawrence Solomon, the two researchers who produced the survey deliberately left out solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers … all scientists likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. Only scientists employed by governments or universities were chosen to be surveyed, introducing another source of bias."

Interpreting this, the proponents of anthropogenic causation seem to be giving the cold shoulder to solar scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists .

Ruby · 24 July 2011

The following address by Dr David Evans is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."

read the rest -it won't take long.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

I think you will agree he has the right credentials!

trainspotter · 24 July 2011

HUGE numbers of voters in Julia Gillard's heartland Labor seat have turned against her in the wake of her plan to tax carbon, according to a new poll conducted exclusively for the Sunday Herald Sun.

Less than a year after 64 per cent of voters in the western suburbs electorate of Lalor gave the PM their primary vote, Labor would be forced to rely on preferences to hold her seat.

Since August, Labor's primary vote in the seat has dropped by 18.3 per cent to 46 per cent, according to research by pollster JWS Research.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/jul...ax/story-e6frfkvr-1226100559206#ixzz1Syt50CHE

For whom the bell tolls eh?

DB008 · 24 July 2011

Ruby, very good find!

I wonder what the 'alarmists' will do to discredit this one????

Starcraftmazter · 24 July 2011

matty77 said:
except for you of course.

Of course

noco said:
He reckons this Carbon (dioxide) tax is CRAP and will only upset our economy and send Labor on a slow train wreck!

I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence - unless it is talked about what effects it will have 50-100 years onwards, when said policies have had time to take effect. Just shows how short-sighted some politicians are, not to mention stupid. I mean....to look at a policy addressing a long-term problem, in terms of short-term consequences. Really?

Iemma did a terrible job anyway.

drsmith said:
Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.

Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.

First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.

Second of all, if you don't like politicians who lie, then you should do a bogus vote every election.

sails said:
Why it is necessary to use these sort of illusions to market something as important as a major tax change is beyond belief, imo.

Because people aren't smart. Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.

Ruby said:
I guess that means the answer to my question to you (post 1195) is NO - you don't know what photosynthesis is, or understand the role played by CO2 in the life cycle.

Of course I do. You however have no idea what it has to do with global warming. More specifically you do not understand that the amount of vegetation that exists on the planet is only barely enough to suck up all the co2 it naturally emits (ie. before humans). Add to this deforestation, and the problem is even worse.

Ruby said:
No you can't. It's entirely irrelevant. You don't need a degree to know what photosynthesis is; I learned about it in primary school!

I see...so you think you with your primary school scientific knowledge understand global warming, well that explains a lot

Ruby · 24 July 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence.....

No, because you are too young and inexperienced. Also, the carbon (dioxide) tax has nothing to do with responsible environmental action.

Starcraftmazter said:
First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.

How about "There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead."

Starcraftmazter said:
Of course I do. You however have no idea what it has to do with global warming.

That is rather a foolish statement. You have no idea what I know!!

Starcraftmazter said:
I see...so you think you with your primary school scientific knowledge understand global warming, well that explains a lot

Read what I said and do not misquote me. Such tactics add nothing to the debate. "Photosynthesis" does not equal "global warming". What I said was quite clear.

sails · 24 July 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
...Because people aren't smart. Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.

I have often posted that Aussies are being taken as fools - and you have just confirmed it. They might not know that co2 is invisible but they do know dishonesty.

If Gillard is playing on people's lack of scientific knowledge, why then does she try to use deception of grey skies and sooty steam coming out of chimneys? Perhaps she could tell them about the fairies at the bottom of the garden too. People do eventually find out the truth and ultimately, Gillard loses even more credibility.

Spin Gillard's famous "no carbon tax under a government I lead" any way you wish, but she still promised it. And now she is telling more porkies to the public and possibly trying to shut down the media and wonders why she is losing respect so fast.

It seems that Gillard herself is the one who is not smart. She is underestimating Aussies and she has no mandate to force her ideas. Just because she has tax payer funds to pork barell indies into submission does not necessarily make her opinions right for Australia.

Julia · 24 July 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence

With this admission you have made your ignorance clear. Not really anything more to be said.

First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.

I can't really believe you're serious here, given the number of times on this forum and in the broad media, the Prime Minister's promise has been quoted, but just to be kind to you I'll quote it once more:

There will be no carbon tax in the government I lead.

Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.

I presume by 'the average bogan' you mean your average fellow Australian? I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to assume so much superiority. The average voter is quite capable of sorting out what is reasonable and what is wealth redistribution thinly disguised as environmental policy.

Starcraftmazter · 24 July 2011

Ruby said:
No, because you are too young and inexperienced. Also, the carbon (dioxide) tax has nothing to do with responsible environmental action.

Seems like I'm still smarter than you

Ruby said:
How about "There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead."

That is very simple, this is not a carbon tax - it is a carbon emissions trading scheme, with a fixed price on carbon for the first few years.

Ruby said:
That is rather a foolish statement. You have no idea what I know!!

That's true, but it is not a foolish statement.

Ruby said:
Read what I said and do not misquote me. Such tactics add nothing to the debate. "Photosynthesis" does not equal "global warming". What I said was quite clear.

Then perhaps you can clarify your views on how you believe it relates to global warming?

sails said:
trying to shut down the media and wonders why she is losing respect so fast.

How exactly is she trying to do that?

sails said:
It seems that Gillard herself is the one who is not smart. She is underestimating Aussies and she has no mandate to force her ideas. Just because she has tax payer funds to pork barell indies into submission does not necessarily make her opinions right for Australia.

Force her ideas? How about take part in saving the planet from global warming?

Julia said:
I presume by 'the average bogan' you mean your average fellow Australian? I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to assume so much superiority. The average voter is quite capable of sorting out what is reasonable and what is wealth redistribution thinly disguised as environmental policy.

Clearly not. Furthermore;

The best argument against demoracy is a 5 minute chat with an average voter.

sails · 24 July 2011

And I will share Julia's kindness - and this short video also contains Swan's statement of absolutely rejecting the coalition's ridiculous claims that labor might bring in a carbon tax. Aussies might not know everything about science, but they can spot liars.

Starcraftmazter · 24 July 2011

Well I've already explained this. There is no carbon tax, it's just what Libs and Media are calling it to fool Australians - and a lot seem to have fallen for it, proving how ignorant they all are.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Dash8

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

drsmith

drsmith

Julia

In Memoriam

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

Ruby

Logique

Investor

Ruby

trainspotter

DB008

Starcraftmazter

Ruby

sails

Julia

In Memoriam

Starcraftmazter

sails

Starcraftmazter

Similar threads

Labor's carbon tax lie

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

You are arguing with a Galah

In Memoriam

Investor

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency