Labor's carbon tax lie

[Knobby22]

From the article:

"It does this by putting a price on the carbon pollution from new waste deposited in landfills after July 1, 2012."

Methane from existing waste will not be taxed.

Carbon credits will go to operators who cut pollution from existing waste, the spokesman said

Some waste polluters already have methane reclaiming technology, won't they make money by selling carbon credits with no capital cost??? I think it is not as clear as the tip bosses say.

 

[noco]

Cracks are starting to appear in Gillard carbon (dioxide) tax with some of the old time Labor people coming out of the wood work.

Della Bosca and Immea just to name two.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...omments/carbon_dioxide_tax_crazy_della_bosca/

 

[mexican]

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.

I think people might start to understand my quote on a previous post.....and I will post it again..."Lambs go to the slaughter easier when comforted and whispered sweet nothings"

You have to ask yourself:
What are the big players going to gain?
What are you going to gain?
What is the enviroment going to gain?
You and I know the answers and slowly the Australian public might be waking up!

 

[DB008]

Thinking of selling your home???
Not before you get a 'Energy Performance Certificate', rumoured to be going for around $600-$800


I'll grab more info once the press gets onto it..(which should be very soon l think)

 

[sails]

Interesting comments found in the Wall St Journal by Matt Chambers - doesn't look good for Australia going it alone with such a dumb tax:

Anglo American says Australia's carbon tax is a major turn-off

ANGLO American chief executive Cynthia Carroll says Julia Gillard's carbon tax could lead the miner to favour new coal investments in Colombia over Australia.

and

"There is no other country imposing this sort of carbon pricing scheme, so it puts Australia in a difficult competitive position when comparing it to countries that haven't taken this position, like the US, like Mozambique, like Mongolia and like Colombia."

 

[dutchie]

Stupid time to be wasting our money.
Stupid time to be introducing a new tax.
Stupid time for imbeciles to ruin us.

Recession is comming.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stock...1.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

 

[Julia]

The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.

May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.

 

[mexican]

Great idea Julia......I will be doing the same!

 

[sails]

The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.

May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.

Haven't got ours yet, but it will be promptly returned. More likely in an envelope and pamphlet marked with black felt pen "carbon tax not wanted".

Did yours arrive in plastic, Julia?

 

[Julia]

Haven't got ours yet, but it will be promptly returned. More likely in an envelope and pamphlet marked with black felt pen "carbon tax not wanted".

Did yours arrive in plastic, Julia?

Yes. From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.

Before I tossed mine into the post box marked" Return to Sender", I also marked it, also in big black felt pen letters, exactly as you suggest, sails, i.e.l "We do not Want your Carbon Tax".!

 

[sails]

Yes. From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.

Before I tossed mine into the post box marked" Return to Sender", I also marked it, also in big black felt pen letters, exactly as you suggest, sails, i.e.l "We do not Want your Carbon Tax".!

Thanks Julia, and interesting about the plastic. Seems somewhat counter intuitive to be sending out millions of brochures about the environment wrapped in plastic.

Or perhaps because government is exempt from carbon tax, it doesn't matter about their pollution and all that plastic that will go into our waste systems. Which ever way, it sends a message about a government who seems to care little about the environment and it's all about the money.

We haven't got ours yet. Our building doesn't accept junk mail in our letter boxes, so maybe we won't get it.

I have heard of some who have returned it reply paid to Combet with a note to say "I think this is your rubbish"...

However, I don't know how much good it will do sending them back. This government is not one that is known for it's honesty, so I expect they will play down just how many are returned to them.

 

[bellenuit]

The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.

May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.

Was it addressed specifically to you or to the "household" or just no address?

 

[Logique]

Sane and rational. We need more of it in this debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-doomed-to-fail/story-e6frgd0x-1226107705909
Carbon scheme is doomed to fail. Gary Johns From: The Australian August 04, 2011

"....If politicians swallow their pride and ask a different question of the economists, they get a very different answer. Bjorn Lomborg did so some years ago. "If the global community wants to spend up to $250 billion per year over the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate changes, and to do the most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?"

Numerous Nobel Prize-winning economists agreed on a priority list showing the most and least effective ways of reining in temperature increases. They concluded the most effective use of resources would be to invest in:

• Researching solar radiation management technology

• Technology-led policy response to global warming designed to develop green technology faster

• Researching carbon storage technology

Cutting emissions now is too expensive and politically infeasible. Cutting in the future when the technology is available is cheaper and feasible. As for abatement, as Campbell says, "action in pursuit of the impossible is irrational"."

 

[moXJO]

Cutting emissions now is too expensive and politically infeasible. Cutting in the future when the technology is available is cheaper and feasible. As for abatement, as Campbell says, "action in pursuit of the impossible is irrational"."

Labor thinks we should be saving the world with this BS
I would rather see a shoring up of our defenses towards climate change and energy shortages, rather then trying to reduce carbon specifically. Developing hardier crops, water security, energy and new tech etc should be at the forefront and I don't have a problem with Australia leading the field in these areas. I'm sure these things are being developed now but a boot load of carbon money would no doubt speed things along. The idea for us at this stage is adapt, because we don't have a hope in hell of providing change to global emissions.

 

[noco]

Al Gore continues with his propaganda that Globe is warming. When will he gie up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

 

[Julia]

Was it addressed specifically to you or to the "household" or just no address?

No address. So it will miss all those households which have instructions like "addressed mail only" on their letterboxes.

Labor thinks we should be saving the world with this BS
I would rather see a shoring up of our defenses towards climate change and energy shortages, rather then trying to reduce carbon specifically. Developing hardier crops, water security, energy and new tech etc should be at the forefront and I don't have a problem with Australia leading the field in these areas. I'm sure these things are being developed now but a boot load of carbon money would no doubt speed things along. The idea for us at this stage is adapt, because we don't have a hope in hell of providing change to global emissions.

Totally agree. I'd be happy to pay the equivalent of the carbon tax for the above, especially water and food security.

 

[Logique]

The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.

Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.

 

[drsmith]

Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.

I have not seen mine yet.

Perhaps Federal Labor has abandoned all hope of ever winning a future seat in the west.

 

[noco]

Looks like Baraby has been doing some home work on how this dreaded Carbo (dioxide) tax will hit NSW.




Senator Barnaby Joyce

Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water

Leader of The Nationals in the Senate

LNP Senator for Queensland


4 August 2011


Carbon tax to hit regional Australia the hardest

Figures released by the NSW Treasury this morning shows that a carbon tax will hit regional Australia the hardest, shadow Minister for Regional Development, Senator Barnaby Joyce said today.

"NSW Treasury figures show that the carbon tax will lead to 31,000 lost jobs in NSW but over 26,000 of these jobs would be in regional Australia, including 18,500 in the Hunter, 7000 in the Illawarra and 1000 jobs in the central West.

"If Mr Crean wants to continue his "embrace the challenge" tour of regional Australia he needs to come clean with them how they are meant to embrace the challenge of fewer employment opportunities.

"This should be no surprise to anyone who understands regional Australia. Regional Australia is where most of our mines, factories and electricity generators. A carbon tax will clearly hurt regional Australia the worst.

"The NSW Treasury analysis also shows that electricity prices will increase by 15 per cent, not the 10 per cent promised the Prime Minister. That will amount to an extra $500 a year for the average household in higher electricity costs alone.

"Australian Government Treasury figures show that people in regional NSW pay 25% more for electricity than those in capital cities. That means regional Australia will bear the brunt of these price increases too.

"Why again are the regional independents, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott, supporting this tax?"

 

[noco]

CARBON TAX!!!!!!!!!! WHAT CARBON TAX?????????????

No word for three days. What a break from the constant brain washing from JU-LIAR.

AHHHHHHHHHH ACTION ACTION!!!!!!!!! DIVERT DIVERT!!!!!!!!!!

Lets talk about the exciting fast rail and health reform, that'll get your mind off that terrible nasty CARBON TAX.

OMG, HOW this incompetent Green/Labor socialist left wing government works. They must really think every voter like their die-hard supporters are stupid.