Labor's carbon tax lie

[sptrawler]

Oh I love this one, the British Prime Minister congratulates Gillard on her carbon tax plan, saying it is bold and ambitious.
What does that mean? stupid and unatainable.
If it is so good why doesn't he adopt it? What a load of cr*p.
Bold and ambitious is like saying Kevin Rudd is going to take on Mike Tyson thats also bold and ambitious and just as stupid.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9945032/british-pm-praises-gillards-carbon-plan/

What he probably means is go ahead and cut your own throats you bunch of fools.

 

[sptrawler]

I looked up Britains commitment to carbon reduction. They aim to reduce carbon by more than us, it is interesting to see some of the initiatives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3316111/Britains-CO2-emissions-could-be-cut-by-80.html

Here's another.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/06/30/no-progress-towards-emissions-targets-in-2010
and finally, sounds as though U.K has the same problems as Gillard.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-target-in-doubt/story-e6frg9df-1226080884249

 

[drsmith]

They just keep lying.

On Insiders this morning,

BARRIE CASSIDY: The Opposition is asking the Auditor General to look at your advertising. There are a couple of issues they raise.

They claim that this suggestion that only 500 big polluters will have to pay ... what about the 100,000 or so businesses who, from 2014, will have to pay a tax on the transport fuel?

GREG COMBET: Well, this is just another piece of nonsense from Tony Abbot.

That is a bare faced lie.

From the clean energy future website,

Encouraging lower pollution in business transport

Unlike households, many businesses are eligible for a fuel tax credit to offset their fuel excise.

From 2012-13, some businesses will face an effective carbon price on their use of transport fuels through reduced fuel tax credits. Combined with new emissions standards for vehicles, this will help to reduce carbon pollution in the transport sector.

Businesses in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries will be exempt from the reduction in fuel tax credits and will therefore be shielded from the effective carbon price on their transport fuel costs. This will help keep food costs down for households. As aviation fuels do not receive fuel tax credits, domestic aviation fuel excise will be increased by an amount equivalent to the carbon price.

It is the Government’s intention to apply the fuel tax credit arrangements to the heavy on-road vehicle industry from 2014-15.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...-a-clean-energy-future-in-summary/#content012

After some further blurb from Greg Combet unrelated to the question, Barrie had another crack,

BARRIE CASSIDY: But is he wrong to say that it will apply to transport fuel after 2014 and that will affect 100,000 businesses?

GREG COMBET: Under the carbon price mechanism there's only around 500 countries that will have to surrender permits for the pollution that they are emitting.

We indicated of course that household vehicles, light commercial vehicles won't be affected by the carbon price mechanism. But in off-road usage the Government will make some adjustments to fuel tax credit arrangements.

Error by omission in that response.

Labor is certainly doing it's best to try and hide the levying of the carbon tax on heavy transport from 2014.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3281909.htm

 

[Julia]

Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.

I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.

 

[noco]

Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.

I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.

Julia, what else would you expect from Cassidy and the ABC. They are both pro Labor and biased.

Labor has the audacity to claim that News Ltd is biased towards the Coalition. Talk about hypocrites.

 

[Logique]

Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.
I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.

Yes the mute button is never far away when Gregory Ivan is featured. This is the Minister briefing the PM on climate change, and doesn't it show.

 

[Calliope]

Yes the mute button is never far away when Gregory Ivan is featured. This is the Minister briefing the PM on climate change, and doesn't it show.

Whenever Gillard of Combet are questioned on the carbon tax they rave on about Tony Abbott "running around scaring people." They are obsessed with him.

 

[noco]

Whenever Gillard of Combet are questioned on the carbon tax they rave on about Tony Abbott "running around scaring people." They are obsessed with him.

And worried about him. The next poll will be interesting. The last poll was like bouncing a dead cat.

I wish the likes of Cassidy would ask Combet and Gillard about the 10% of the carbon (dioxide) tax collection that will go to the UN Climate Change committee of which Rudd is a member.

 

[joea]

Oh I love this one, the British Prime Minister congratulates Gillard on her carbon tax plan, saying it is bold and ambitious.
What does that mean? stupid and unatainable.
If it is so good why doesn't he adopt it? What a load of cr*p.
Bold and ambitious is like saying Kevin Rudd is going to take on Mike Tyson thats also bold and ambitious and just as stupid.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9945032/british-pm-praises-gillards-carbon-plan/

What he probably means is go ahead and cut your own throats you bunch of fools.

No! He is endorsing the carbon tax in Australia hoping the people here are stupid enough to allow it through.
Then he can pull the same "scam" over there.
A tax in the disguise of helping the enviroment.

joea

 

[wayneL]

It should be noted that Cameron is what is known as a Red Tory.

Not really a true conservative at all.

 

[drsmith]

Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.

Barrie was much keener to interupt the panelist's comments than he was Greg Combet.

 

[Smurf1976]

I looked up Britains commitment to carbon reduction. They aim to reduce carbon by more than us, it is interesting to see some of the initiatives.

1. Their coal production peaked nearly a century ago and has seen a classic Hubbert decline at the hands of depletion of easily accessible resources. More recently, oil production has entered decline and the gas is fast running out too.

With that backdrop, good ole' mother England has rather a lot to gain economically if other countries can be persuaded to give up their cheap energy supplies. Otherwise, they're stuck with a massive economic millstone around their necks.

A look at this article and in particular the coal production chart tells the story. UK coal was stuffed long before anyone had even heard of Thatcher and pit closures. http://www.claverton-energy.com/lit...926-miners-strike-recalled-dr-fred-starr.html

2. The proposed measures will, in my opinion, fall well short of what would be required to achieve the proposed emissions cuts. That's unless, of course, they bring out the big gun that will do most of it - nuclear power. Sure, it's ridiculously expensive but it does represent a low-CO2 means of keeping the lights on. And if you've already burnt all the coal, oil and gas then in relative terms the cost doesn't look quite so bad.

Australia, on the other hand, is in a very different situation. With so much coal located here, and low production costs, we have a comparative advantage in energy particularly with regard to processing of the metallic minerals we also mine. This helps offset the many other economic disadvantages this country faces.

 

[Julia]

From sptrawler's link above:

Without wider acceptance of higher bills, Mr Laidlaw was to suggest that carbon emission targets would have to be ditched.

"We as a nation have got one year in which to take action, or our carbon reduction targets may have to be sacrificed in the interests of safeguarding the security of our energy supplies," he was to say.

And I'm pretty sure that when the UK announced their targets they included a 'get out' clause which specified that they would not be obliged to pursue these targets if the rest of the world had not made a similar commitment by, I think, 2012/13.

I might be wrong about the date. Someone else may remember more clearly, but the point is that it's an aim or a target, not a binding commitment. Big difference from our carbon tax!

And yes, of course David Cameron is going to be keen for other countries to make him look less like a voice in the wilderness: hence his sycophantic letter to Australia.

 

[noco]

Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.

When Combet was tacked about carbon dioxide being odourless, colourless and non toxic, Combet came back and said "try putting your head in a bag of carbon dioxide and see how long you will live".

I mean to say, is this bloke for real?


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...il/comments/and_the_climate_wont_even_notice/

 

[wayneL]

Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.

When Combet was tacked about carbon dioxide being odourless, colourless and non toxic, Combet came back and said "try putting your head in a bag of carbon dioxide and see how long you will live".

I mean to say, is this bloke for real?


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...il/comments/and_the_climate_wont_even_notice/

####ing Idjit!!

Our atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, try putting your head in a bag of 100% nitrogen and see how long you live.

 

[mexican]

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=846628&showcomments=true

 

[Julia]

Thanks for posting that link, Mexican. I have tried to point out before that the so called tripling of the tax free threshold is no such thing when the Low Income Tax Offset is taken into account, and I just can't believe that the majority of journalists are so slack that they have not called attention to this and allowed the government to continue claiming a tripling of the tax free threshold.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.

No doubt every other council in Australia will in due course have to follow suit.

If nothing else, it puts to rest this "500 biggest polluters" nonsense. Since when was the Hobart City Council, which serves only part of what isn't exactly a large city to start with*, a "major polluter"?

What exactly is HCC doing to create all those emissions? They've got some offices, halls etc, a landfill site (from which methane is already captured for power generation), an aquatic centre, asphalt production plant and a fleet of trucks for road maintenance etc. They don't do anything really dramatic, the asphalt plant is the only thing they run which could be described as a factory, and HCC's emissions would be far less than any of the many larger councils in Australia would no doubt have.

What else? Well I suppose someone's going to argue that the Taste of Tas food festival is using too much LP gas or that the council's outdoor work crews had better stop using petrol / diesel powered tools because of CO2. Or maybe it's a hot food van at Salamanca market burning too much gas, or maybe it's those fairy lights in the trees down there using all the power. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Worth noting that HCC has long been keen on "green" energy things, having used sewage as a means of heating a major swimming pool complex for many years (don't panic, it's a completely closed system using compressed gas heat exchange - there's no chance of the sewage ending up in the pool even if a pipe did break).

Even more interesting is that there's a few Greens on the HCC. Yep, Greens noting that the carbon tax is going to cost rather a lot. Hmm...

*HCC serves approximately 50,000 people or about a quarter of the Greater Hobart regional population. It's a pretty small operation compared to many local government authorities in the other states - not exactly a "big polluter" one would think.

 

[sptrawler]

Another thing that is interesting, from what I can find out it appears the British model works on regulation and incentive. Unlike ours which depends on direct taxing individual companies.

 

[sails]

All these flow on costs will add up. I doubt very much that this carbon tax has been properly tested for the ripple effect. Here is another discussed in this article from the Herald sun by Gemma Jones:

$200m rubbish slug will be passed on, say tip bosses

AUSTRALIANS will pay an extra $200 million to dump their waste under the Federal Government's carbon tax, a rubbish group claims