Here's a link from the SMH on Gillard's change of mind: All bets are off, says PM
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.
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).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?
Mr Kloppers was keen to make clear that he thought consumers should pay more as a result of a price being put on carbon.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?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.
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
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?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.
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.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.
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?
Thanks, noco. Yes, I do, of course. No idea where the "Evans" came from.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?
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
Thanks, noco. Yes, I do, of course. No idea where the "Evans" came from.
Is he available for the coming parliament?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?