The Gillard Government

[noco]

Here's a link from the SMH on Gillard's change of mind: All bets are off, says PM

Marius Kloppers (BHP) has a bigger interest in the largest uranium mine in the world than he has in coal, so why would he not push for a CPRS.

Get rid of the coal industry and go nuclear to sell more uranium. He is not really interested in climate change or the effects CO2 emmissions have on "GLOBAL WARMING".

 

[sails]

It would be helpful if representatives of the media did their homework.

Ms Gillard did not rule out a carbon tax before the election (although Wayne Swan did during this term under intense questioning on the 7:30 Report in the final week of the campaign).

Just prior to the election, Julia stated, if returned, Labor would legislate a carbon price this term to take effect next term.

Labor's intention has always been to introduce a price on carbon. The only difference now is they may get to introduce it sooner with the support of the independents and Greens.

Only the other day, I saw a news clip on more than one TV channel of Gillard dressed in her white suit, pearls & lots of makeup (as she dressed before the election) stating clearly there would be no carbon tax in this next term if she were elected. I think they said Ms Gillard made this proclamation five days before the election.

lol - what am I missing, drsmith?

 

[todster]

non core promise

 

[drsmith]

Only the other day, I saw a news clip on more than one TV channel of Gillard dressed in her white suit, pearls & lots of makeup (as she dressed before the election) stating clearly there would be no carbon tax in this next term if she were elected. I think they said Ms Gillard made this proclamation five days before the election.

lol - what am I missing, drsmith?

No carbon tax this term (2010-2013), but legislated this term to start next term (2013+). That's what she stated on the eve of the election (1 to 2 days before polling day).

Those who voted Labor voted for a carbon tax.

 

[Julia]

Marius Kloppers (BHP) has a bigger interest in the largest uranium mine in the world than he has in coal, so why would he not push for a CPRS.

Get rid of the coal industry and go nuclear to sell more uranium. He is not really interested in climate change or the effects CO2 emmissions have on "GLOBAL WARMING".

Mr Kloppers was keen to make clear that he thought consumers should pay more as a result of a price being put on carbon.
But at the same time, he was equally clear that he expected any costs attached to measures taken by BHP would be fully rebated to the company by the taxpayer.

Fine for him on his multi million dollar income. Some of the low income earners of this country who are already struggling, will not be so delighted to think BHP will continue to flourish while they have the added impost of a carbon tax affecting their electricity and other costs.

Can't help thinking his statement may be the result of a condition of the resource tax agreement so happily agreed with the government by BHP, RIO and XStrata, though Rio's Mr Albanese is noticeably quiet and so far not supporting Mr Klopper's advice to government.

 

[derty]

Marius Kloppers (BHP) has a bigger interest in the largest uranium mine in the world than he has in coal, so why would he not push for a CPRS.

Get rid of the coal industry and go nuclear to sell more uranium. He is not really interested in climate change or the effects CO2 emmissions have on "GLOBAL WARMING".

Did you even have a look to see what BHP produces before you blurted that out?

For the 2008 financial year BHP produced:
115Mt met and thermal coal combined at the current price of around $90/tonne is about $10.4 billion dollars.

4144 tonnes of uranium oxide = 8.3M lb U oxide at current price of around $50/lb = $415 million dollars.

Only a bit over an order of magnitude incorrect.

FYI Olympic Dam isn't a uranium mine, it's a copper mine with a uranium by product.

 

[noco]

Did you even have a look to see what BHP produces before you blurted that out?

For the 2008 financial year BHP produced:
115Mt met and thermal coal combined at the current price of around $90/tonne is about $10.4 billion dollars.

4144 tonnes of uranium oxide = 8.3M lb U oxide at current price of around $50/lb = $415 million dollars.

Only a bit over an order of magnitude incorrect.

FYI Olympic Dam isn't a uranium mine, it's a copper mine with a uranium by product.

Derty, you have quoted figures back in 2008. If you had done a little bit more research, you will note coal is only 8% of BHP's revenue. Most of it is exported, so why would they worry about a CPRS?

Further more they are saying we should look beyond coal. If you had carried out some more research you would have learned BHP are about to develope the second largest uranium mine in Australlia at Yeelirrie in WA where BHP will produce 5000 tonnes of uranium per year. Urnaium prices are destined to rise in price as world demands increase and coal decreases due to CO2 emmissions. So Kloppers may not be as silly as he looks.

Dety, if you have not got the message by now, I'm afraid I can't help you any more.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/move-on-climate-bhp-billiton-urges-20100915-15cn4.html

 

[Knobby22]

Derty, you have quoted figures back in 2008. If you had done a little bit more research, you will note coal is only 8% of BHP's revenue. Most of it is exported, so why would they worry about a CPRS?

Further more they are saying we should look beyond coal. If you had carried out some more research you would have learned BHP are about to develope the second largest uranium mine in Australlia at Yeelirrie in WA where BHP will produce 5000 tonnes of uranium per year. Urnaium prices are destined to rise in price as world demands increase and coal decreases due to CO2 emmissions. So Kloppers may not be as silly as he looks.

Dety, if you have not got the message by now, I'm afraid I can't help you any more.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/move-on-climate-bhp-billiton-urges-20100915-15cn4.html

Did you ever think Noco that Kloppers wants to do the right thing by the world and Australia. He is not a automaton only caring about money. Also he is retiring soon so he knows that there will be little to gain/lost for him personally as CEO.

I think you should take a good hard look at what he said again and pretend he is human with a family and has looked into climate change and realises the world and Australia need to act.

On Julie's comment, a carbon tax is necessary however the tax should be fed back in to tax cuts/low income earners so the result is not too troubling for the Australian people but the price signals case behaviour change. This can take place however the Libs won't do this if they can avoid it.

 

[Logique]

Any discussion on a price for carbon should include the option of nuclear power stations, but I bet Senator Sarah Hansen-Young and the Greens, and the ALP Left - will attempt to dictate just that.

Fine to have a discussion on a price for carbon, but let's have all of the options on the table. Including measures for social justice for the ensuing cost of living fallout (pun intended). Haven't heard much from Marius Kloppers or the Greens on that subject yet!

Willing to be bet that 'working families' won't be inconvenienced in any way.

And BHP have got the uranium.

 

[Julia]

Any discussion on a price for carbon should include the option of nuclear power stations, but I bet Senator Sarah Hansen-Young and the Greens, and the ALP Left - will attempt to dictate just that.

Fine to have a discussion on a price for carbon, but let's have all of the options on the table. Including measures for social justice for the ensuing cost of living fallout (pun intended). Haven't heard much from Marius Kloppers or the Greens on that subject yet!

Willing to be bet that 'working families' won't be inconvenienced in any way.

And BHP have got the uranium.

Agree. That Ms Gillard's proposed committee to consider what to do about carbon is only to include people who already agree about what should happen is a mockery. Why not include the Libs as well with their alternative approach?
Also, have scientific input from so called sceptics as well as the believers.

 

[noco]

Agree. That Ms Gillard's proposed committee to consider what to do about carbon is only to include people who already agree about what should happen is a mockery. Why not include the Libs as well with their alternative approach?
Also, have scientific input from so called sceptics as well as the believers.

Yes, Ms. Gillard is asking for bipartite co-operation from the coalitition and working together in the National interest. (only when it suits HER.)

What a two faced b###h.

 

[Julia]

It's pretty funny that Rob Oakeshott has now decided his plan to become Speaker wouldn't work. It seems a discussion with Mr Abbott today allowed him to see how naive he was being. Even Kerry O'Brien this evening suggested to Mr Oakeshott that he would appear to many people to be grandstanding and acting in self interest.

Will be interesting to see how the saga progresses.

Is Harry Evans available to fill the role again in the new parliament?

 

[ghotib]

Agree. That Ms Gillard's proposed committee to consider what to do about carbon is only to include people who already agree about what should happen is a mockery. Why not include the Libs as well with their alternative approach?
Also, have scientific input from so called sceptics as well as the believers.

The committee's purpose is to work out how to price carbon. It is not to revisit arguments about whether carbon emissions are a problem, or whether Australia will price carbon. Assuming "so called sceptics" are sceptical about those two things, they have nothing useful to contribute.

The Libs excluded themselves, and I'm sorry they did. Greg Hunt has a clue and might have been able to pass half a one on to Abbott.

Cheers,

Ghoti

 

[Logique]

Listening to ABC radio this morning.

Post-election, I'm having trouble working out who's the Prime Minister now - is it Rob Oakeshott or Kevin Rudd.

With appointing a Speaker, perhaps on the first morning of the sitting they could 'rock off' for it, say best of three with elimination rounds.

 

[joea]

Hi
The PM is still the "faceless men, the spokesperson is Julia Gillard"

 

[noco]

It's pretty funny that Rob Oakeshott has now decided his plan to become Speaker wouldn't work. It seems a discussion with Mr Abbott today allowed him to see how naive he was being. Even Kerry O'Brien this evening suggested to Mr Oakeshott that he would appear to many people to be grandstanding and acting in self interest.

Will be interesting to see how the saga progresses.

Is Harry Evans available to fill the role again in the new parliament?

Julia, do you mean Harry Jenkins. Don't know Harry Evans.

 

[Julia]

Julia, do you mean Harry Jenkins. Don't know Harry Evans.

Thanks, noco. Yes, I do, of course. No idea where the "Evans" came from.
Is he available for the coming parliament?

 

[IFocus]

Thanks, noco. Yes, I do, of course. No idea where the "Evans" came from.
Is he available for the coming parliament?

You are not alone Julia some one on the ABC radio did the same this morning.

 

[IFocus]

The Libs excluded themselves, and I'm sorry they did. Greg Hunt has a clue and might have been able to pass half a one on to Abbott.

Cheers,

Ghoti

Hunt is an excellent performer no doubt destined to be side lined as a result.

 

[noco]

Thanks, noco. Yes, I do, of course. No idea where the "Evans" came from.
Is he available for the coming parliament?

Yes Julia, Harry Jenkins is available and appears a bit put out that he is the speaker in waiting.

It would appear the Labor Party are in a bit of a quandary as to what to do without reducing their majority from two to one. The appointment of Harry Jenkins would put the Labor Party at a disadvantage because he can only have a casting vote.

IMHO I believe Julia Gillard should bite the bullet instead of pussy footing around. It is her responsibility. She wanted to govern at all costs, so she must now ware the consequence of having to sacrifice one vote.