JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Australian Anti-Carbon Tax Protests

We all have better things to do, but when the people who represent us call the greatest plant nutrient “pollution”, and label the volunteers “stooges” while calling their paid hacks “independent”; when they look at a color chart and say yellow is really red (and they call us “deniers”); we know things are running off the rails.

When they ask us to pay billions to change the weather, then we know the quicksand has come. And when even they admit if we succeed beyond our wildest dreams that the results will be too small to measure (how many thousandth of a degree will that be, Julia?) sometimes we just have to do something don’t we?

We can act now or pay the cost for years to come. Each time we let them get away with an untruth they grow stronger. Each time we ignore the Orwellian perversion of our language (Is it carbon (sic) pollution (sic)?), we feed the parasites who want our freedom and our money, and that hurts us, our children and the environment.

The big protests around the country start on Wednesday next week.

  • We want an election first. The tax affects every transaction in the economy. We want  a choice before this major legislation goes through. Julia Gillard did not get a mandate at the last election. She promised a “committee” and no tax, then gave us a tax anyway. Where was the debate, the discussion, the analysis? The voters voted overwhelmingly for parties promising “No Tax”.
  • It will hit the economy. Gillard won’t give details, she’s hoping we’ll all think someone else will pay and that vague “compensation” will save the pain for the big “polluters”. But these so called polluters are also companies owned by Australian shareholders, with Australian employees, and Australian consumers. We will all pay one way or another.
  • It won’t help the environment. If we abandon Australia we save 0.015°C and 2mm of sea level rise. So this is not about the environment, it’s about power and money.

CANBERRA

Weds 23 March,  12:00pm
Parliament House

Facebook
Website:  http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/ (CATA Consumers and Taxpayers Association)

Speakers include Joe Hockey, David Archibald, Bob Carter, Angry Anderson, John Madigan, and possibly quite a few others.

There are at least 30 buses organized for this already. Please sign up by TODAY if you want a lift from Melbourne or Sydney.

PERTH

Weds 23 March, 10:30am
Parliament House,
Harvest Terrace, Perth
Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au
The Facebook page for the Perth Protest

Protest posters here and here. (Can be printed and posted at your local shop, or library. Please!)

Speakers: Jo Nova, David Evans

ADELAIDE

Weds 23 March, 10:30am
Parliament House

Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com

The Facebook page for Adelaide
Website: AxeTheCarbonTax

Contact: Damian Wyld, 8363 5044, info@axethecarbontax.org

*Yes there was a mini rally there 2 days ago as well.

MELBOURNE

Weds 23 March 10:00am (was listed as 10:30)
Federation Square, Melbourne

(Close to Flinders St Station).

1.5 km walk to Parliament House

Speakers: Bernie Finn, Alan Moran, Des Moore, Les Twentyman, Tony Hooper, Chris Dawson, Tim Wilms

Contact: stevenjan777@hotmail.com or colinjely@gmail.com

Facebook for Victorian Protesters

SYDNEY

Sat 2 April,   10:30am
Sydney Town Hall,
Macquarie Street, Sydney
Facebook – NSW Protesters

BRISBANE

Weds 23rd March

Meet at King George Square 12:30pm
Speeches until 1:15pm followed by a March through the Queens St Mall, along George St to Parliament House.

Contact: Tim Wells—phone: 0435 146 119, e-mail: timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk

7 May, 11:30am
Location: outside thee Queensland Parliament House (Cnr of George st and Alice Streets)
Facebook for Brisbane Protestors
Contact: Natalie Keys, natalie.keys@uqconnect.edu.au 0430 356 608

See also:
No Carbon Tax

Revolt Against A Carbon Tax

Stop Gillard’s Carbon Tax

Menzies House

Please email support AT joannenova.com.au if these details are incorrect or out of date.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Australian Anti-Carbon Tax Protests, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4qwbr53

150 comments to Australian Anti-Carbon Tax Protests

  • #
    DBD

    Good Luck! Big fan of Perth WA

    00

  • #
    Nick

    I am envious of all who attend.

    I just can’t get there. Damn I want to though. Good luck to everyone and please make sure there is video footage available somewhere.

    Go get ‘em!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Planning to be there … maybe I can have a cryptic “What is ClimateGate?” placard :)

    You know what will happen of course… the left wing(nuts) will organise all the BZE type crowds (because they said they would at the presentation on Monday) and try to get larger numbers out to protest. Then they will say: “See? There are more people in favour of a carbon (sic) tax than against it.”

    Unfortunately rational people are too busy with their jobs, families and social commitments, while rent-a-crowd dole bludgers amd students are easy to round up for the left. Sure that is a generalisation, but judging by the types that were in the BZE presentation we also know it to be true.

    To be dead honest I am a swing voter (and have voted both ways in the past), but there is no way I could vote for Labor with their current policies determined to kill off the one thriving industry in this country.

    00

  • #

    We are protesting in Brisbane on 23-03-11.

    I haven’t heard of the May protest. One would think that the protests in each city would be on the same day for maximum effect.

    00

  • #
    Jamel

    Jo, could you clarify this for me. Is the Sydney protest outside Town Hall which is on George St, or outside Parliament House on Macquarie St. Many thanks.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    It’s a sad commentary on the state of politics in Australia when the silent majority is finally driven, out of sheer frustration, onto the streets to protest nonsensical destructive policies of a Government clinging to power with the support of, and being held to ransom by, a radical minority party and a ragtag gaggle of self-serving “Independents”.

    Worse is the fact that the tipping point has been the decision by Julia Gillard to deliberately deceive voters and lie before the election by promising “no carbon tax”, then figuratively give the voting public “the finger” and do a cynical backflip.

    She and her Government have no mandate to now impose such a costly measure which will destroy productive jobs, force industries overseas, cause most if not all prices of consumer goods and services to rise, and open up more opportunities for con-men and rorters as has happened with every bungled scheme the Rudd/Gillard mish-mash has introduced in the last few years.

    All for no discernible environmental benefit, with the whole charade based on fatally flawed self-serving computer-modelled pseudo-science backed by vast financial, UN and Government resources and almost complete compliance and assistance from all branches of the the Mainstream Media!

    Though we know the protest will be characterised in MSM and “AGW believer” circles as a failure, I believe it will give great heart to those who see the folly of the Government decisions and will provide new hope and incentive for more ordinary people to make their views known in whatever way they see best.

    Good luck from Tassie to all who take part.

    00

  • #
    vess

    Can I suggest the organisers publish stuff outside facebook? There are a a few of us who value our privacy and refuse to join the social networking matrix.

    Also the linked site about the Adelaide protest says it is scheduled for 2 days ago. Kind of hard to join now :-(

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Joe Hockey?! I thought he was an alarmist or a luke warmer at best? I wonder how many more politicians (on both sides of the fence) will be wishing him well. Quite a few I suspect.

    I’ll be busy paying taxes on the other side of the country – please give Julia the bird for me. She has dragged the institution of Prime Minister down to the gutter and below.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Bulldust:@3

    You know what will happen of course… the left wing(nuts) will organise all the BZE type crowds

    Of course they’ll be there. Their attendance to silence any opposition is just an extension of their usual practice of shutting down any form of debate; which includes any protest march by carbon dioxide realists.

    Because as we all know, the debate is over, and the science is settled.

    00

  • #

    Right, now it is more clear. There will be two protests in Brisbane.

    I encourage Brisbane people to attend both protests.

    00

  • #
    July

    What, admitting defeat already Bulldust?! Dear me that’s a pretty lame show. Perhaps there aren’t as many rednecks here in Australia as you think? Maybe? Perhaps?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Here we go, from the horse’s mouth, that is to say the boss of Synergy who would have a good handle on the real cost of renewables:

    “There have been some studies out of the east coast … about what the true cost of carbon abatement is using certain renewable technologies – $200, $300, $400 a tonne versus imposing a carbon tax of $20 or $30,” Mr Mitchell said.

    Source: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/9032970/renewable-energy-to-lift-living-costs/

    Even the BZE mob said a price of $200 per tonne would be needed to make renewable energy competitive with current technologies. Which leaves us with one conclusion, and one conclusion only… a $20-$30 per tonne tax on CO2 emissions is not about a push to “cleaner” energy, it is simply about income redistribution. It is only there to fatten Canberra’s coffers by more than $10 billion per year and will do absolutely nothing at all to “combat climate change.” $10 billion per year is a heck of a war chest when you have election anhilation to worry about.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    July:
    No, just pointing out the obvious that the left-wing groups are a heck of a lot more organised than the sceptics when it comes to assembling a mob of protesters. The BZE presentation on Monday was ample example of that.

    July you appear to have English comprehension issues … is it your second language perhaps? She is technically my second language (Dutch was my first), but I seem to have a fair handle on her now.

    I will be thoroughly shocked when you finally say something rational. I ain’t holding my breath…

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    July:@11

    What, admitting defeat already Bulldust?!

    Ahhh the strange and twisted (non)logic of the left.

    Its funny, but I was under the impression that the opinion polls (taken from a broad cross section of the populace) are not favourable to the warmists; regardless of how many rent-a-crowd intend to gather at a “what do we want? – More taxes – When do we want them? – NOW” rally.

    Not sure how you could chide Bulldust for admitting defeat at those odds.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bloody hell – how come we can’t get Angry Anderson!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “greatest plant nutrient “pollution””

    erm I think that in botanical/horticultural circles that would not go down well… “greatest” are you sure… do you have a reference for that?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust no one claims this will make renewables cost competitive do they? As then it would achiever 100% abatement, whereas the target is only 5% for now. Strawman.

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    so MattB your logic is that $25/t CO2 as suggested by Prof Smug on Lateline last night will be sufficient to stimulate the 5% reduction ? Hmmm.. $25/t x 400Mt/a = $10bn p.a. And that will reduce global CO2 conc by perhaps 0.5ppm over the next 15 years..so $150bn for 0.5ppm… gotta be worth it, hey ?

    00

  • #
    Macha

    I hope to be there – here in Perth that is.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    MattB:@15
    I realise that Angry is just another celebrity. However I must admit when I saw his name up there my first thought was – CRIKEY!

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The majority of people who will rally in support of this tax are not yet old enough to be supporting a family and paying mortgages. A lot of them wouldn’t even see the electricity bill, that something that mum or dad pays.
    Unfortunately the people against it have jobs and commitments, and very little time to get out on the streets in protest. They normally do their protesting at the ballot box, the danger is by the time they get their chance to do that it may be too late.

    00

  • #
    July

    I pity the poor people who have to listen to Evans speak at this bunfight. Last time I heard him after 5 minutes I was loosing the will to live, fumbling and bumbling and trying to read from notes. A man’s got to know his limitations and he certainly aint no soaring orator. You need to hire your clown Monckton for the day, that’s one thing he can do is deliver a line.

    [Says you? Funny how it's hard to find real people with real names who agree with you... JN]

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Bulldust @3
    I will be at the Canberra rally, and I’m bringing a couple of referees whistles which my better half and I intend to use if we need to drown out the left wing-nuts, or if they get too close to us. We’ll be able to tell who they are by the smell I’m told.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    What is the point of levying a tax to “combat climate change” if it is not going to change emissions? At $20-30 per tonne it will still be cheaper to use coal for electricity generation and therefore nothing changes. The strawman is the politicians pretending that the $20-30 per tonne tax will achieve anything other than income redistribution and a lot of agency/accounting waste (think of all the carbon accountants and regulators we will need to employ).

    A tax of $20-30 per tonne will not, and I state that categorically, achieve an emissions abatement of 5%. One should also remember that business as usual (BAU) scenarios would have emissions increasing, so a 5% emissions cut is more like a 20%* emissions reduction compared to the BAU scenario.

    * I forget the exact amount, but it is a lot higher than 5% … obviously.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    July:@22

    A man’s got to know his limitations

    Yes, and as I read your posts it’s clear you haven’t recognised yours.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Mr B

    Be glad you have Peter Garrett ( you can have him, he’ll keep you warm somehow!)

    00

  • #
    pat

    the mere mention of Garnaut’s name sickens me. Grattan’s take here has no bearing of anything remotely involved with alleged CAGW, but hey, who cares?

    18 March: Age: Michelle Grattan: Garnaut’s idea a game-changer
    PROFESSOR Ross Garnaut’s bold proposal to use carbon tax funds for a big overhaul of the personal income tax and welfare systems has the potential to transform the debate.
    If the government went down this path it could help its case for the carbon tax, address a core part of the Henry tax review, and wedge Tony Abbott.
    If the negative of the carbon tax could be repackaged as the positive of an income tax cut, this could change the dynamics of an argument where the government is now struggling…
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/garnauts-idea-a-gamechanger-20110317-1bz1m.html

    18 March: Ninemsn: (Carbon) Tax plan to leave mid-earners ‘worse off’
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8225733

    am hoping Union members ignore the failure of their bosses to organise protests, and get out there on the 23rd.

    also hoping the lower-income people who are being manuipulated by Garnaut and the Pollies, and by the likes of Grattan and other MSM, don’t fall for the promise of compensation.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m just saying, you’ll get 20,000 turning out to hear Angry bang out “Bound for Glory” without even knowing what the rally is about… smart ploy.

    Will he do a fundraiser single?

    “Bound for Cooling”
    “I’m all for Carbon”
    “The world’s not Warming”

    so many options.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The Loaded Dog: #14

    What do we want? – More taxes – When do we want them? – NOW!

    Absolutely classic …

    Here’s an idea … Why not get some friends together and all go to the back of the Rent-A-Crowd mob with a megaphone, and start chanting that slogan to see what happens … erm, you might need to wear running shoes though.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I just do not see how Grattan’s argument in Pat’s post @ 27 can work if the Coalition has any brains. Surely if they push this argument of using Carbon Tax funds to play with the general tax system it justifies what sceptics have said along about wealth distribution.
    Politically this would be handing it on a plate to Abbott.
    Has Granault said anything about use of the tax for investment in renewable energy research which I thought was main reason for the tax in the first place — working on ways to get rid of “the horrible CO2″ (sarc.)

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Wish I could make the Brisbane protest on the 23rd, but like many who are against this tax, I have work commitments I can’t reschedule. However, I WILL be there on the 7th May! I’m looking forward to my very first protest ever. Now what to put on my placard…..

    How about

    Stop this economically toxic tax!
    Leave Co2 alone!
    Cheap POWER for the people!
    Let there be light in Australia!
    Say NO to the DECEPTION Tax

    So much fun to be had!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Filing this one under credit where its due … on the ABC Unleashed I find Lisa Meredith quite a refreshing change from the usual AGW proponents. If you search for my tag in this thread:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45086.html

    you will see how she is quite willing to discuss the science in a dispassionate manner. Lisa is quite happy to accept the models are dodgy, for example, but stands her ground firmly on the basic science behind CO2 GHG warming (though I acknowledge some here would debate her on that point as well). I would like to see her and Jo have an open discussion on climate science.

    Just a thought…

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world’s gross production, to drop the earth’s temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

    Read more: ‘Green’ price tag: $700 trillion to drop Earth’s temp 1 degree http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=275109#ixzz1GuX9wkeX

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=275109#ixzz1GqwaSPDx

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust I knew you’d listen to me more if I pretended I was a lady:) I’m calling “crush”…

    She has hardly admitted the models are dodgy however.

    The debate would ask for the empirical evidence and Lisa would be unable to provide any evidence to convince you guys, since she will have no more emperical evidence than the IPCC, and you already know all about that.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I thought we’d sorted out that the 0.015degC was only if we halt emissions, not reduce them to zero and abandon Australia?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    sorry halt rises of emissions.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    My research tells me Angry Anderson will be in Perth on April 23 as Rose Tattoo support ZZ Top… I think you need to change the date Jo!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Actually… they are playing Belvoir on April 2 so you could coincide with the Sydney protest and get Angry!

    LMWD: your slogan should be “I’m Angry” or “I’m with Angry”.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Rereke Whakaaro @29.

    What do we want? More Taxes. When do we want them? NOW.

    Sure is an “absolute classic”, but I can’t claim it, I just continue to quote it. It’s a slogan that’s been popping up at a number of climate realist blogs.

    Some genius came up with it to rightly poke fun at these mindless clowns.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Hmm all the getup crowd there may make it look like there are more climate skeptics than there are.Oh the irony.:-)

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Matt- I glaze over when it comes to the detail of the mathematics or modelling, which is why I say I am willing to believe in global warming when the lying stops, but I am a keen tree grower and did a TAFE horticulture course some years ago there. The view there is that sunlight and CO2 are the main plant foods. The others are necessary too of course, but CO2 supply is a major limiter of plant growth. About 1100 ppm is considered commercially satisfactory for good growth in a greeenhouse. CO2 is not a pollutant! (Yes I do talk to my plants- and no, they don’t answer)

    Bulldust- I read a blog recently with frequent lisa meredith contributions- she kept writing that the periodic table supports global warming. The periodic table is silent on global warming- she is just another pusher of global warming nonsense to the ignorant.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Thanks to BobC I was reading a couple of papers on CO2 build up and it seems to me you are in one of two camps.
    You are in the Solomon camp that believes that CO2 from fossil fuel builds up in the atmosphere and for all intense and purposes is now irreversible. In which case it is pointless throwing large amounts of money at it.

    Or you are in the Segalstad that believes that CO2 from fossil fuel does not build up in the atmosphere in which case there is no problem to begin with.In which case it is pointless throwing large amounts of money at it.

    A win,win situation really.:-)

    10

  • #
    pat

    lmwd:

    some more ideas for placards. use the protests to help people inform themselvesm cos the MSM won’t direct people to the websites.

    “Inform Yourself: Visit wattsupwiththat.com/ ”

    “Inform Yourself: Visit joannenova.com.au ”

    “Inform Yourself: Visit climatedepot.com ”

    ETC ETC

    00

  • #

    I was a believer in AGW three years ago but when the likes of Flannery et al started predicting armageddon I looked into it further and came to the conclusion that the whole farce of climate models (electronic crystal balls) was nothing but “ooga booga”! I can’t understand how educated people can fall for this.

    I talked to the organiser of the first Brisbane rally earlier today and have been invited to speak at the rally but declined. After conferring with colleagues I have changed my mind.

    I’m not qualified to speak on the science but I’m certainly qualified to speak on the politics and economics of this issue which is the underlying basis for the CO2 tax.

    On Dave Evans…I have heard him speak and not only is he an intelligent and great speaker, he jumped off the gravy train because of his convictions. I tip my hat to him.

    00

  • #
    Chris Thixton

    Wish I could be there. I’m in NZ. If I were there I’d be the one with bells on.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    I have played MMORPGs … some dodgy history there I can tell you. I could tell a few interesting stories, but it would not do my credibility any good in the climate debates :p

    manfred listing:
    I think you are a tad quick in your dispatch of Lisa. She tends to say that the Standard Model and chemistry of the periodic table explains the basic science behind AGW (note I don’t use the “C” in front of AGW). I have no beef with that … like Jo I am willing to believe that the effect of a doubling of CO2 is a rise in temperatures of approximately 1C, ceteris paribus (that is to say, all else remaining the same). How the climate system responds to that change is where the real debate is at … at least IMHO.

    The alarmists say that results in water vapour feedbacks which mean temperatures rise 3-6C or thereabouts, and some suggest the system is buffered to a degree (my slang for negative feedbacks) meaning the resulting temperature increase is less than 1C. Obviously one hypothesis is quite worrying while the other is totally benign. I lean towards the benign end of the spectrum, and I would suggest that the weight of geological history supports that basic position (i.e. the climatic system never went out of whack in a couple billion years, so why are things different now?)

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Unfortunately I’ll be in a large helicopter ferrying samples from the field operations to Newman and will be making sure we produce more than our fair share of taxable carbon (dioxide) at the same time.

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    Jo,

    Can you offer comment on an issue that is bugging me?

    If there is a ‘price on carbon’ by the ‘big polluters’ (power generators) then electricity prices will rise. This is expected by Labor as they are willing to offer ‘compensation’ to us mugs that use electricity.

    As the ‘price on carbon’ is intended to make the ‘big polluters’ change their practices and move to less carbon (dioxide) emitting practices, they will eventually lower their costs and the Government will rake in less carbon (dioxide) taxes.

    The price of electricity paid by us mugs will not lower with the generators’ lower costs and I would not expect our consumption to lower as the compensation payments would not change our usage habits. But there is now less money from the carbon tax to pay the same amount of compensation.

    So, where does the extra compensation money come from?

    * raise the tax price – but, if generators eventually become totally ‘green’ with no carbon (dioxide) emissions (the ideal Green utopian dream?), they will not need to pay any tax. Where to from there?

    * raise a new tax – the ‘we have to pay compensation’ tax maybe

    * pay the compensation from other revenue sources and not spend this on hospitals, roads, infrastructure, etc

    I see a new, large, cumbersome, inefficient, over-staffed and incompetent Dept of Compensation will be required to sort all of this out.

    And, whilst all of this is going on, both major parties have no issue with us shipping millions of tonnes of coal overseas for other countries to throw into the air. Maybe we can get them to pay extra to keep the compensation funds rolling in.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I think it’s time we simplified this carbon Dioxide tax as proposed by Juliar Gillard, Bob ‘the red’ Brown and Juliars pre-emminent advisor Ross Garnaut. A carbon tax for Dummies so to speak.
    All figures are provisional.

    WHAT:- A tax of about $26 per tonne of CO2 emissions raising about $11.5 Billlion, to rise by 4% plus inflation per annum. After about 3 years, the control of this tax to be handed over to market traders and bankers by way of an Emissions Trading Scheme.

    WHY:- Acoording to Juliar in her Don Dunstan Memorial Speech “To transform Australia to a low Carbon economy.” (Note, Juliar never says “to reduce global temperatures” which really should be the end goal no?)

    HOW:- Ross Garnauts proposal can be simplified as follows (figures provisional)
    They will take about $600 per year from the well off half of the community. $300 of this will be given to the less well off, from whom $300 has already been taken, leaving them no worse off.
    Part of the $300 left in government hands will be used to compensate vulnerable industries (so that jobs are not lost and trade unions don’t rock the boat). Whatever little is left will be used for administrative costs and as incentives for renewable energy development.

    Will this encourage Australia to transform its economy to a low carbon one as Juliar wants? To answer that, we need to understand what a carbon economy is.

    The carbon economy began 800,000 years ago when mankind first discovered fire and realised he could extend the working day and ward off predators with it (very simplified). Hence the carbon economy was born and has been chugging along without missing a beat for 800,000 years.

    Juliar will change all that (or at least begin to) by taking $600 from one half of the population and giving $300 of it to the other half from whom she already took $300. Gettit?

    Maybe the MSM headlines should read “Gillard to Change 800,000 Year Economy by Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.”

    Does it make sense? C’mon, you know it makes sense :)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The Loaded Dog: #38

    … but I can’t claim it, I just continue to quote it.

    Aw, and there was me thunk’n thet youse was sum genii-arse.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    scaper…: #43

    I’m not qualified to speak on the science but I’m certainly qualified to speak on the politics and economics of this issue which is the underlying basis for the CO2 tax.

    Good on you, Scaper.

    It is the economics that is the really scary part. When everybody is in green jobs, checking that the correct recycling is in the right bags, etc. Who is actually doing any productive work for the economy?

    I sometimes wake up at night worrying that I will be the only person left without a green government job, trying to support the entire economy by selling vegetables from my back garden. Mind you, if that situation eventuates, the price of a cabbage would be really impressive …

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bulldust: #44

    … the climatic system never went out of whack in a couple billion years, so why are things different now?

    Because THEY want it to be, that’s why! What part of that don’t you understand? /sarc

    00

  • #
    Cate S

    Jo, not too sure how to put this youtube clip on here so I have just pasted the reference here.
    Says it all really – people are not going to accept this rubbish that pollies are trying to tax us into oblivion – so we will keep coming back and continue the fight against this!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’ll try and get to the Perth rally – work permitting.

    Look for the bloke who is interjecting, with carefully thought out witty comments like, “Bullshit!”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust whats an MMORPG? is that like a MUD? hmm we are of a similar vintage I’m assuming. Is this going to end lie The Crying Game?

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    “I’ll try and get to the Perth rally – work permitting.

    Look for the bloke who is interjecting, with carefully thought out witty comments like, “Bullshit!”

    You could come straight from work with your shovel. You could lean on it if it gets a bit intellectual.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    You have many international followers.
    Is there some e-mail address that we may file a complaint?

    After all, any future visitors will have the added burden of higher costs through this carbon tax.
    Plus doing business in your country becomes more costly to any future investors.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Rereke Whakaaro @29
    Here’s an idea … Why not get some friends together and all go to the back of the Rent-A-Crowd mob with a megaphone, and start chanting that slogan to see what happens.

    You never know they tend to do as they’re told – Independent thought is not their strong point.
    At a previous rally someone got them to all walk backwards looking like complete fools

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    John Trigge@46:

    You are right. In the long run, we will all pay more for power, without any compensation. Just how much more depends on how well we go at developing alternative energy sources.

    But its better than an ever warming world.

    00

  • #

    The intrepid NoCarbonTax Television street interview Series 002 is up tonight.

    We went to Sydney CBD and asked people what they thought about the Carbon [dioxide] Tax – both those for and against.

    The answers are illuminating.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Binny:@57

    At a previous rally someone got them to all walk backwards looking like complete fools

    That mob look like fools walking in any direction…there’s no need to get them to walk backwards.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    John Brookes,

    Until Greenland gets to the climate state it was before the LIA, any warming observed is simply the earth returning to its MWP state, and sensu-strictu a natural process.

    I might also say you have inverted cause with result as well – warming produces more human activity, not the other way around that you think is happening.

    It’s going to be fun watching you and your fellow energy-haters spending the rest of your lives eking an existence from barely sustainable sources as a result of your Ludditic view point. I have already prepared myself for precisely what the Gillard-Green government intends – but I suspect you and your lot will complain most bitterly when you find yourself returning back as a serf living at the subsistence level.

    00

  • #

    [...] Join the Australia-wide Anti-Carbon Tax Rallies JoNova Rally Information Central: Here [...]

    00

  • #
    Cole

    Don’t know how to get this to Joanne but AGW has been disproven. It is physically impossible and would betray the laws of thermodynamics for a so called “greenhouse effect” to exist…They are forced to argue that hot air doesn’t rise.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Exactly Louis; John hasn’t the insight to see that this will be the inevitable result of green polices on AGW:

    http://landshape.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/scaled.jpg

    It is beyond doubt that greens are of 2 sorts; the first are the misanthropes who want this future for human-kind; the other sort are the witless drones who cannot see that their psychological shortcomings which make them support such draconian ideology will produce for them such a future; in short they are sufferers of cognitive dissonance.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Check out Willis at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/why-a-revenue-neutral-energy-tax-isnt/

    “Why a “Revenue Neutral” Energy Tax Isn’t
    Posted on March 18, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach “

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    I don’t have a copy, but in this carbon tax hoo-ha there is an echo of the interview with the Labor Transport representative in Peter Sellars and Co’s “How to win an election, or at least not lose by much”

    00

  • #
    BobC

    rukidding: (@41)
    March 18th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Thanks to BobC I was reading a couple of papers on CO2 build up and it seems to me you are in one of two camps.
    You are in the Solomon camp that believes that CO2 from fossil fuel builds up in the atmosphere and for all intense and purposes is now irreversible. In which case it is pointless throwing large amounts of money at it.

    Or you are in the Segalstad that believes that CO2 from fossil fuel does not build up in the atmosphere in which case there is no problem to begin with.In which case it is pointless throwing large amounts of money at it.

    For those who don’t want to (or can’t for various reasons) look at and evaluate the science involved, there are other useful ways to do due diligence on these two camps. (Jo has a useful tutorial on this here.)

    The bottom line is this:

    1) Tom Segalstad is perfectly willing to look at both the empirical data on CO2′s behavior in the environment and the various theoretical models of its behavior. He has pointed out that the models not only can’t reproduce the measured behavior, but they contradict common facts, such as the known capability of CO2 to sufficiently dissolve in water that makes possible the production of carbonated beverages.

    2) Susan Solomon, in her “seminal” paper last year (the one that claimed that anthropogenic CO2 is forever), completely ignores the last 50 years of empirical, peer-reviewed, studies that measured various aspects of the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere (which would be, interestingly, incompatible with her model). She only references other theoretical models that have compatible results.

    For example, check out how Solomon says CO2 behaves, with an actual measurement of its behavior.

    RealClimate (and other CAGW propaganda blogs) have tried to take on the “short CO2 lifetime” roadblock by resorting to handwaving arguments about how it “doesn’t matter” because of the countering flows, etc, etc. (Significantly, Soloman, et. al. are chicken to put arguments like this in their paper, because then they might have to demonstrate that their model could reproduce the C14 tracer data — which it manifestly cannot.)

    Soloman’s model has ~50% of injected CO2 still remaining in the atmosphere after 30 years (and 20% after hundreds of years), while the actual data shows 5% left after 30 years. More recent data put the residual at < 3%, and the best estimate of the various CO2 reservoir sized (which the IPCC accepts) suggest the real residual is ~2%.

    So, who do you think is conning you?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    I might add, that with a residual (injected CO2 left in the atmosphere) of 2%, Human civilization might be able to (by itself) double CO2 concentrations in ~3,000 years.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Another Ian@63:

    That post at WUWT is truly awful. If you submitted that as an essay for ECON1101, you’d probably fail.

    I don’t get it – if you want to have a post about the economic consequences of a revenue neutral carbon tax, why not get an economist to write it? Is there some sort of deep seated mistrust of anyone who has actually taken the time and effort to truly understand something?

    Actually, let me answer my own question. If you asked an economist to write something, they might actually have to look into it, and do some real work. They may even want to be paid for doing this. And after that, they may come to conclusions you don’t like. So you are better off getting one of your mates to write some drivel which fits your beliefs (or those of your intended audience).

    How depressing.

    00

  • #

    Go on John, if you had to actually explain why Willis was wrong on WUWT you might actually have to think. Easier to throw an ad hom eh? “Works” every time.

    How depressing.

    Willis’s logic made perfect sense to me.
    Pretending we can suddenly swap the main energy source our civilization was built on, for another unproven and more inefficient one, and do it all for “free” – it’s revenue neutral! — sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. Sure, it won’t slow us down to change all that infrastructure, to retrain all those people, to do those years of research… Sure…

    00

  • #
    grayman

    John Brookes, I said it bfore and will say it again, OMG you are an IDIOT!!!! There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax, A tax any way you look at it is that, a TAX, and it will not go away, once the poloticians get ti they will not let go. Not one thing they say they want to do with money will ever happen except go into thiers and bankers pockets!
    Good luck to you down under at the rallys, i am there in spirit with you and look forward to some video from it, Especially from the megephone crowd behind the rent a crowd with the tax chant, that will be a hoot.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    John Brookes @ 71

    “Get an economist to write…… some drivel which fits your beliefs (or those of your intended audience)”.

    You mean like this John? Herald Sun 18/3/11 Ross Garnaut (alias King Canute) – “I think it’s very important to save the planet from cooking. If at the same time you can reform the tax system and make us all more productive then that’s a good thing”. The Magic Pudding is alive and well!!

    00

  • #

    I see that JULY at post #11 and 22 has continued his substance free comments.I mocked your feeble effort to be relevant in the other thread.So far you avoid me.To try your luck here instead.

    Someday this summer boy will try an old idea and gain some credibility.

    I wonder if he knows what that is?

    00

  • #

    Post # 71,written by John Brookes.

    What WUWT post and why is it bad?

    So far you offer nothing to explain your reaction.

    How depressing you can be when you do not follow up on your initial whining.

    Leaving us to wonder if that was the best you can offer.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes:

    Lucky day for you … the economist in the house is up and blogging. There is nothing wrong with the basic thrust of Willis’ argument. The mark-up varies from business to business but that doesn’t alter the end result. If you levy a $10 tax on the cost of an item to a business, they will inevitably require somewhat more than $10 in return or their percentage return suffers. You see I ran a small business (successfully) for 4 years as well, so I have an acute awareness of the hands-on financial nouse required.

    Rule of thumb in shopping mall retail shops is that they charge 100% mark-up BTW, except supermarkets (they work on high turnover and small margins) and jewellry stores (usually 200-300% mark-up). Most other retail is typically around 100% mark-up over wholesale prices. So you don’t even have to be an economist to understand why Willis’ argument is realistic … any small business person that has a clue will tell you the same thing.

    So yeah … please tell us why Willis’ argument is so desperately wrong.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    John Brookes @ 60

    Question for you John — do you support nuclear energy as an alternative electricity source for Australia ?

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Some rabib little ABC person has done a piece in the Oz cherry picking listener comments designed to show sceptics as ill-informed.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/climate-just-right-for-talkback/story-e6frgd0x-1226023786937

    This is what I replied.

    Oh well, if you are from the ABC that explains a lot, given Aunty has been critiqued recently for the extreme ideological nonsense they’ve been brainwashing listeners with over recent years. In calling CO2, aka plant food, a pollutant you are abusing, language, logic and science, according to one well recognised Professor of Climate, Carter! How about we stop tomato growers pumping up to 1000 ppm (that’s 3 x what’s in our atmosphere) of Co2 into their glasshouse while we’re at it, huh? Wouldn’t want those tomatoes growing well and using water efficiently now would we? Now consider this, Co2 has been up to 20x higher than it is today in the history of this planet, around the time of the dinosaurs. It was no hotter then, than it is now! You display quite astounding scientific and historical ignorance! So you are pro sending this country over an economic cliff on the basis of flawed science, but that is your opinion. I do not believe in this religion of dangerous global warming and I will not pay additional taxes so people like you can feel all warm, fuzzy and heroic thinking you’re saving the world, when in reality you are displaying ignorance and utter gullibility!

    Ran out of words to have a go about the missing ‘hot’ spot in the troposphere…

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    lmwd@79

    You know when you get this line, “Graham may be wrong about CO2 not being a pollutant. Try putting a bag of it over your head Graham”, that you are indeed talking to an ABC true believer. You hear that incredibly stupid rejoinder quite often on the ABC blogs. That of course is about par for the level of intelligent debate from that source.

    If one stuck a bag of oxygen over one’s head it would soon be exchanged for CO2 because we humans stay alive by, amongst other things, changing O2 into CO2. Which means of course that nitrogen is not needed in the bag, plain high quality air would be just as fatal as a bag full of nitrogen. Which of course is why we know many true believers are incredibly stupid because by their test high quality breathing quality air must be a pollutant for it would, with the said same size of bag over your head kill you just as quickly.

    However if humans are exposed to high concentrations of oxygen it’s not all beer and skittles either.

    A bit from Wiki:

    “Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures. It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect, and the pulmonary condition the Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered its discovery and description in the late 19th century. Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs and eyes. Oxygen toxicity is a concern for scuba divers, those on high concentrations of supplemental oxygen (particularly premature babies), and those undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

    The result of breathing elevated concentrations of oxygen is hyperoxia, an excess of oxygen in body tissues. The body is affected in different ways depending on the type of exposure. Central nervous system toxicity is caused by short exposure to high concentrations of oxygen at greater than atmospheric pressure. Pulmonary and ocular toxicity result from longer exposure to elevated oxygen levels at normal pressure.”

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    correction @ 80 should be CO2 not nitrogen. “Which means of course that CO2 is not needed in the bag, plain high quality air would be just as fatal as a bag full of CO2.”

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    BobC@69

    Thanks again for the information.Other than the obvious reason why would you not want to find out what the actual RT is.

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    I see Joe (I believe in AGW) Hockey (stick) will be speaking at the Canberra rally. I sent him a copy of Bob Carters book. Maybe he’ll have read it before he embarrasses himself with his “let’s give the planet the benefit of the doubt” speech.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Don’t tell anybody.
    CO2 is not considered a pollutant by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities – National Pollution Inventory.

    http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/list-of-subst.html

    So keep it to yourself OK?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Llew Jones:#81
    March 19th, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    lmwd@79

    You know when you get this line, “Graham may be wrong about CO2 not being a pollutant. Try putting a bag of it over your head Graham”,

    I had that stated to me once when I told a friend CO2 was not a pollutant. And he had quite a smirk on his face. My reply?

    “Water is not a pollutant, try sticking your head in a large bucket of water for a few minutes. So what was your point?”

    The smile wiped off instantly.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Baa Humbug@86

    Very good.

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    Baa @ 86
    I’ve heard that DHMO is very dangerous like that. Its being released in huge quantities from the Fukushima reactors at present too,a nfd was integrally involved in their initial destruction and subsequent problems. Apparently it’s causing the largest amount of global warming too. We should probably think about taxing it.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Jo and others:

    Go on John, if you had to actually explain why Willis was wrong on WUWT you might actually have to think. Easier to throw an ad hom eh? “Works” every time.

    Quite right Jo. I do not have an excess of time and expertise to waste on this. One amateur attacking another amateur is a waste of time. You run a blog. If you are at all interested in finding out the actual economic effect of a carbon tax, invite an economist to post here. You could ask John Quiggin, or Ross Garnaut, or Ross Gittins, but these are left leaning economists. Find a right wing economist, and ask them. You could try Warwick McKibbin, who designed John Howard’s original ETS – he is definitely not left wing.

    Willis’s logic made perfect sense to me.

    Then I’m guessing you’ve never actually studied economics. Neither have I, but my bullshit meter was going off the scale.

    Pretending we can suddenly swap the main energy source our civilization was built on, for another unproven and more inefficient one, and do it all for “free” – it’s revenue neutral! — sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. Sure, it won’t slow us down to change all that infrastructure, to retrain all those people, to do those years of research… Sure…

    It won’t be free, and I never said it would. All I said was that Willis’ attempt to quantify the cost was wrong.

    Since your starting premise is that there is no need to do anything about climate change because its all good (or at least not that bad), it is not surprising that you don’t want a carbon tax. But just because you don’t want it is no reason to cheer on lame arguments against it. Or must a campaign of disinformation be waged at every level?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Ross@79:

    Do I support nuclear energy in Australia? I wonder why you ask….

    Yes, provided that all the costs are factored in. If it turns out to be competitive when fully costed, then do it.

    The Japanese experience has been enlightening. A catastrophic natural disaster, and yet it is still likely that major nuclear disaster has been averted. The problem seems to be that current nuclear fission technology does not allow a passive shut down.

    There is ongoing research into fusion in Europe, with plans to have a test plant running in the next decade. Their reactor design seems very safe, so that may be the way to go. With the proviso, of course, that fusion power has been coming for a long time……….

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: Then I’m guessing you’ve never actually studied economics. Neither have I, but my bullshit meter was going off the scale.

    Righto – so Willis is wrong because your “bullshit meter” was going off. Well, that’s it then. I’m convinced. I’ve read Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt, and Hayek, but if your bullshit meter is that far over then you must be right.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Jo, I think that reading the economists you just listed doesn’t actually count as having studied economics – any more than reading “A Brief History of Time” counts as having studied physics.

    But seriously, get a professional economist, and ask them to comment. That way, we find out really useful stuff, rather than just relying on our own prejudices.

    If an economist at one of the local universities gives a talk on the economics of a carbon tax, I’ll try and go along and learn.

    00

  • #
    doug z

    I’m going to attend the anti-carbon tax rally because the carbon tax is one of those turning points in history, where you just can’t afford to sit back and hope it will all be OK because if this thing gets up, it won’t.
    However, I’m kind of worried about the “Consumers and Taxpayers Association”, which seems to be a statist organisation – I don’t know if that’s left-wing or right-wing because it’s all the same to me. They believe in nationalised education, nationalised health, nationalised childcare, housing etc, etc and they’re in favour of subsidies (ie. wealth transfer) to deal with climate change. I don’t really know why the CATA would be against the carbon tax because CATA seems to be a very pro-tax pro-wealth redistribution kind of organisation. I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend but I don’t trust CATA.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I hear some bloke called Garnaut is an economist?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Yes, MattB, and a good one at that. I wonder if mainstream economists are like climate scientists – a bit dodgy? ;-)

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Been drinking again, JB? It shows you know.

    Why don’t you give Willis the benefit of your breathtaking omniscience. Go on, JB, make a comment at WUWT. Tell Willis he’s wrong and for what reasons. We’re all wainting.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:#89
    March 19th, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    It won’t be free, and I never said it would. All I said was that Willis’ attempt to quantify the cost was wrong.

    John I’ve ran businesses for myself and others for 26 years, that’s what I do.

    Willisses premise is correct. And no, he did not ‘quantify’ the cost, he generalised correctly.

    No need for an economist to know that.

    00

  • #

    Hey MattB. Yes Garnaut is an economist and I’m sure he is an accomplished one at that. But does that mean all of his pronouncements and studies are correct? Is he immune to human failings? Have economists been wrong before? I’d suggest no other field of human endevour has been as wrong, and wrong as often as economists.

    Garnauts job was to make Carbon abatement seem as painless as possible to make it politically palatable. In that he has done his job well.

    Garnaut is Australias version of UKs Nicholas Stern. Rather like a mini me.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    John Brookes@94

    “I wonder if mainstream economists are like climate scientists – a bit dodgy?”

    Intuitively it seems you are on to something. Economics and climate science suffer from the same sort of complexity in their fields of investigation and that complexity is the most likely reason both rarely get an important prediction right.

    Here’s a bit on economics and perhaps why like CAGW climate science we should take many of their pronouncements and predictions with a grain of salt:

    “….How can we possibly understand all of the complex social, financial, cultural, political, personal, historical, legal and other relationships which are continuously interacting in everyday life and which determine actual real-world economic outcomes?

    Furthermore, how can we then predict these real-world relationships into the future when we don’t even fully understand how they work now?

    This dilemma was faced by a well-respected economist with a major Australian financial institution at the end of 2007, who confidently predicted that in 2008 “Global growth will slow but should avoid a hard landing”. In a well researched and presented article, the author laid out a perfectly reasonable argument in support of this claim, and forecast that the ASX 200 index would be around 7300 points in December 2008  — it actually ended the year at 3720 points. As of December 2007, however, this was a relatively mainstream and uncontroversial view.

    With the benefit of incredibly complex statistical and econometric software, and utilising the brightest minds in world economics, to my knowledge not one single major bank, global financial institution (e.g. World Bank, IMF) or government agency foresaw the GFC. Yet it is now obvious the GFC is one of the defining events of our lifetime.

    The GFC, which started in mid-2008, was simply not considered as a factor in the analysis of these institutions. At least until after it actually occurred. This apparent lack of foresight highlights the distinction between economics as an abstract analytical tool, and economics as the study of real-world set of outcomes.

    Ultimately, for all their apparent complexity, the world’s most powerful economic models had no concept of the very human emotions of fear and mistrust. Yet it is these emotions that were the catalyst for the shift in market sentiment we saw in late 2008, and which exposed the unsustainable nature of the worldwide credit boom….”

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/17/gfc-real-world-economics/

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Clowns like Ross Garnaut are nothing but two bob a dozen academic pretenders. Another such chardonnay socialist is Brad Orgill. This merchant banker was appointed by the Labor Party to oversee the BER scheme. Surprise surprise; he came to the conclusion that it was more important to “get the money out there” (typical socialist attitude, that). As far as getting value for the taxpayer’s dollar? Hah, forget it! It’s only taxpayer’s money, you know.

    When these chardonnay socialist economists prove their mettle by building a successful business from the ground up, that’s when i’ll give them credit. I’d give any local Greek, italian or whatever fruit marketer more credit for economics savvy. The last person you’d want to run your business (or country) is an economist with a socialist bent.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug… the great thing about economists is that they don;t even have to try and base what they say in something as real as empirical science, they allow different schools that are wildly different because there is no actual reality, and their models are not even expected to be more than vaguely accurate, and even then they get forgiven for not seeing things like the GFC that in hindsight were jumping up and down waving big flags!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    MattB:

    Well we can certainly agree on that point!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Baa Humbug@96:

    As I read it, Willis predicted a price increase based on businesses keeping their margins constant. Imagine an economy consisting solely of widgets. So if a widget cost an extra $1 to make (because of a $1 carbon tax), and the business has a 100% mark up, then, according to Willis, the price of the widget would increase by $2. Willis points out that if the tax was revenue neutral, then the extra $1 per widget that the government collects as carbon tax would be returned to the people. But since widgets now cost an extra $2, even though the tax is “revenue neutral” the people will be worse off by $1 per widget.

    Now there is a tiny problem with this apparently simple story. A business using this pricing scheme now makes an extra dollar for each widget they sell ($2 price increase – $1 cost increase). So that business increases its profits by $1 per widget. Imagine there are many such businesses. What each of these businesses would like is to just keep the extra $1 per widget. But competition is not like that. Competition will lead businesses to pass on only the increased cost plus a little more.

    Like some of you guys, I’ve run a business. I’d love to have just chosen a margin and stuck to it, but your competitors tend to be bastards who don’t realise that you would all be better off with higher margins. No, they want a bigger share of the market, and will cut prices to achieve this. When I started in business, that is exactly what I did – realised that the existing operators were ripping people off, and set my margins lower than theirs.

    Anyway, Willis is a little bit right, in that the price of goods will increase by slightly more than the carbon tax component. He is wrong in saying that the price will increase by double the carbon tax component. This is, dare I say it, alarmism.

    But, I don’t enjoy pretending to be an economist! A real economist would give a much better, and more correct explanation than I can. The trouble with economists is that they expect to be paid for this sort of work.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes from post # 89,

    “Quite right Jo. I do not have an excess of time and expertise to waste on this. One amateur attacking another amateur is a waste of time. You run a blog. If you are at all interested in finding out the actual economic effect of a carbon tax, invite an economist to post here. You could ask John Quiggin, or Ross Garnaut, or Ross Gittins, but these are left leaning economists. Find a right wing economist, and ask them. You could try Warwick McKibbin, who designed John Howard’s original ETS – he is definitely not left wing.”

    John Brookes from post # 71,

    That post at WUWT is truly awful. If you submitted that as an essay for ECON1101, you’d probably fail.

    Translation:

    I will not explain why I hate his presentation,because I am too busy exposing my extreme prejudice instead.

    Then I’m guessing you’ve never actually studied economics. Neither have I, but my bullshit meter was going off the scale.

    Translation:

    I am too busy adjusting my built in bullshit meter to be answering a reasonable question about WHY you say “That post at WUWT is truly awful.”.

    I wonder if you ever studied on how to credibly debate with anyone?

    It won’t be free, and I never said it would. All I said was that Willis’ attempt to quantify the cost was wrong.

    Yup and that is all you said,nothing more.Plus having that high quality B.S. meter helping you understand why.

    I am jealous!

    Since your starting premise is that there is no need to do anything about climate change because its all good (or at least not that bad), it is not surprising that you don’t want a carbon tax. But just because you don’t want it is no reason to cheer on lame arguments against it. Or must a campaign of disinformation be waged at every level?

    Lame arguments?

    Like yours? Where all you ever told us, “That post at WUWT is truly awful. If you submitted that as an essay for ECON1101, you’d probably fail.” AND “Then I’m guessing you’ve never actually studied economics. Neither have I, but my bullshit meter was going off the scale.”

    The really funny part is that you are so full of crap,and you are completely oblivious of it.

    Here is why I say that,

    Back to post # 71 are your words: “That post at WUWT is truly awful. If you submitted that as an essay for ECON1101, you’d probably fail.

    bolding mine

    But you later wrote at post # 89 in a reply to Jo’s short statement “Willis’s logic made perfect sense to me.” this gem: “Then I’m guessing you’ve never actually studied economics. Neither have I, but my bullshit meter was going off the scale.”

    bolding mine

    Yet because of that B.S. meter of yours you just KNOW it is wrong!

    ROFLMAO!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sunsetottommy:

    If I’m so “full of crap” and “completely oblivious of it”, could you explain why Willis’ post is anything other than awful.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I wish I could be there.

    Good luck!

    00

  • #

    Aww gee John B.

    It IS indeed too hard for you to tell us WHY you think Willis E’s post is bad.

    Gosh you even waste your time replying me,when you could have instead spent that time to TELL us WHY in some detail,you think Willis is wrong.

    But now we both know that is too hard for you to do.

    Go play with your broken B.S. meter.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    John Brookes @ 90

    My question about nuclear power was genuine. Last week MattB said he supported nuclear power and I just wondered where you stood given you were talking about alternative energy sources.
    I note you say thats OK as long as the costs stack up — thats good. So why don’t the costs of wind power and solar power have to stack up? That is , why do they have to have subsidies?

    Re your discussion over Willis’ piece– as you have started to allude to in your later posts , there is a big difference to how a business person will look at something compared to an economist. That is why you don’t see many wealthy economists ( ie wealth from their own creation)

    00

  • #

    @John Brookes #103

    But competition is not like that. Competition will lead businesses to pass on only the increased cost plus a little more.

    That sounds reasonable John. But remember, business is in competition NOW. They are ALREADY operating on “cost plus a little more”.

    When the margin of a business drops, their medium to long term risk rises. This increases borrowing costs and on and on it spirals. The widget making enterprise quite possibly ends up overseas. Why is it do you think that increasing wages (a cost no different to tax) closes down industry in Australia forcing it o’seas? They COULDN’T just absorb the rising costs.

    Also, you really should read Willises replies to comments. You’ll find that not only do you “agree a little” with him, you actually fully agree with him. See his reply at 2:37am

    So his main point, the principal that a tax can never be revenue neutral, is 100% correct, even if business passes on say $1.01 of $1.00. Then there is the government administrative costs. It can never return every last cent it taxes. there will always be a leakage to administrative costs.

    00

  • #
    doug z

    You’re an interesting cat, John Brookes. On the one hand you dismiss some of the greatest thinkers of all time, on economics or any other subject in Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt, and Hayek, but you would listen to some no-name from a local university.
    You would rather listen to your “bullshit meter” than apply reason and logic to an argument, and you would rather ask a “professional economist” (but not one on Joanne’s list) for his opinion than have to think for yourself. Presumably you would let your bullshit meter decide if the professional economist was right, and let me guess, your bullshit meter is calibrated to the left?
    Incidentally, I have read Ludwig von Mises’ “Human Action” and was mighty impressed. I take it that you have too, and I would be interested in hearing your refutation.

    ps. can I buy your bullshit meter? I would like to test it for myself because it must be pretty good.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    doug z:

    Why I want to listen to a no-name from a local university is that this is just nuts and bolts economics. There is nothing difficult or controversial about it.

    To give an example from physics, consider a ball rolling down an inclined plain. Any good third year uni physics student can give you a good quantitative explanation of this. They can explain why rolling is slower than frictionless sliding, and why a solid sphere will roll faster than a hollow sphere. For a given sphere, they can calculate with pretty good accuracy the speed of the sphere at any given time or at any given distance from the start. By factoring in friction and air resistance, they can improve the accuracy of their prediction. You don’t need a Feynman, Hawking or Einstein to explain this stuff. In fact, these people wouldn’t find this stuff interesting, so they wouldn’t be the best people to explain it. Any competent physicist would do, but in order to communicate it well, you’d be after a physicist who was a good communicator.

    Same with the economics. The effect on prices of a carbon tax is not some major “philosophy of economics” problem where a Hayek or Keynes is needed. This is the economics of Adam Smith just like the physics above is the physics of Newton.

    Now I’ll share a secret with you – I haven’t read von Mises (or Hayek, Keynes etc). I haven’t even read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, though I’ve seen a TV show about it. I read a book by Galbraith on the history of money, which was a great read. I once read a chapter or two in an economics textbook about supply and demand. So I’m not familiar with the great ideas of economics – just one or two of the basics.

    I’m starting to worry that hanging around here and WUWT is wearing out my bullshit meter ;-)

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Baa Humbug: The point where I disagree with Willis is his calculation of the price increase of widgets. He simply asserts that the widget maker will keep his margin (he chooses 100%) the same after the introduction of a carbon tax, so the price rise to consumers is twice that of the carbon tax. So consumers are considerably worse off, even after the carbon tax is returned to them. It is this point where I’d like to see the comments of an economist.

    Willis later says that the margin may not stay exactly the same. So the cost increase of widgets is now effectively unknown, and so just how much worse off people are is unknown.

    00

  • #
    doug z

    JB, firstly on your non-response to Sunsetottommy: If I’m so “full of crap” and “completely oblivious of it”, could you explain why Willis’ post is anything other than awful.” Well, John, you are the one who made an assertion and surely you see that the onus is on you to justify that assertion. If I say that something is a load of crap then I say why I think so, I don’t ask someone else to say why it isn’t.

    Now, on your reply to me. You gave a physics analogy. The first problem is that argument by analogy is logically flawed, but the bigger problem was your choice of analogy. Physics is a hard science – it deals with things that can be measured and predicted, unlike Economics, which if you had gone to the trouble of actually reading Mises, you would know was about something very difficult to measure – human action. This is why the Austrian economists reject empiricism in economics. Economics – if you really have to draw parallels with physics – is more like quantum mechanics than Newtonian mechanics (tho’ not really like either), but I do agree that the philosophy of economics isn’t the subject, and you really did overcomplicate things by trying to simplify them with a flawed analogy. The writings of Mises, Hayek and the others on Joanne’s reading list are really just common sense economics stripped of smoke and mirrors, and other mumbo jumbo that says things like you can spend your way out of debt, and increasing taxation is the way to greater productivity.

    Sorry John, I don’t believe that we gain anything by insulting each other but you really do need to become more informed so that you can properly tune that bullshit meter of yours. It’s not this site that’s to blame for wearing it out.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    John B has come in and stated that the defect in Willis’s analysis as to why a CT will not be income neutral is because shopkeepers will want to keep their margin; that is, Willis’s calculations are correct just his assumption about margins is wrong.

    Even if we accept that JB’s criticism about margins is not correct and shopkeepers will happily decrease their margins [who is making unrealistic assumptions now? Just swirl that assumption, willingly lowering margins, around your mouth for a while JB, and if after that you can still say it is more realistic than Willis's assumption then we will be able to confirm our suspicions about you!] the CT will still not be income neutral for a number of reasons.

    1 The CT, as I indicated here, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-silent-giant-coal-monster/ will be at least a double stage tax; firstly on the emissions from the power supply [scope 1] and secondly from the USE of that energy [scope 2]. This means that the shopkeepers will be paying TWO CT’s so their impost will not be $1 but $2; their margin, if maintained will mean no profit at all!

    2 To administer this new CT will take a great big new bureacracy; that means the gross figures of CT versus compensation will have a big fat cost hole in the middle; which means of the [now] $2 taken from the shopkeeper, the bureacracy will take, on the basis of previous bureacratic adminsistration about 1/2.

    3 Does that mean the consumer is happy because even though the shopkeeper has been slugged $2, the consumer has still got his $1 with the government the other $1 and the shopkeeper is the only one out by $1? No because even if the shopkeeper only puts his margin up $1 and wears the other $1, which means in effect that his margin is now 1/4 what it was, there is the cascade effect; the consumer does not only deal with one shopkeeper but many; if all the shopkeepers reduce their margin by 3/4, because they too are consumers, that means a great number of consumers are still out of pocket. The net effect is a large reduction of funds available to the private sector and a large increase to the public. Do we really think that public sector is going to productively deal with that extra money as efficiently as the private sector would have done?

    00

  • #
    doug z

    I am regretting my decision to enter this debate with JB, because it is giving me a headache. It seems more and more like trying to discuss calculus with someone who by his own admission neither understands nor has any desire to understand basic algebra. But anyway, here is one final contribution.

    JB, saying “so just how much worse off people are is unknown” is not a flaw in Willis argument. It is simply in the nature of economics (please refer to my previous post for why). Had you read Mises, you would also have heard of the concept of “consumer sovereignty”, but to cut a long story short – widget makers don’t set prices, the market sets prices. If a widget maker was to set his prices above the market clearing level, some widgets would remain unsold. Where prices are set below the market clearing price, shortages emerge. So we can say with confidence that increasing costs will increase prices by some amount. We can’t say by how much because there are too many variables – eg. some producers will absorb the cost because they have no choice (eg. those that compete with imports from countries with no carbon tax) and some of these producers will lay off staff or go out of business, or cut their dividends and see their share price fall. People will be hit in many ways – as consumers, as employees, as shareholders and retirees on fixed incomes, etc, etc – and each of these losses will affect the economy in a host of other ways. If any economist from your local uni says he can quantify the impact then he is a fool or a liar, but we can say that it will be adverse.

    There is however one very important fact that has been overlooked by the vast majority of economics commentators – this tax will not affect prices uniformly like the GST did. Some people who receive government handouts will be better off. The economy is very finely balanced, with layer upon layer of capital in a complex structure, so distorting prices has an unpredictable effect. Scarce capital will flow in accordance with the preferences of the recipients of money, and given that the role of subsidies is to reward inefficiency, we can say that capital will be wasted. Windmills and solar cells are extremely inefficient forms of electricity generation, so anything downstream of them is also inefficient. Like I said, the impact is unpredictable, but we can say with certainty that anything that promotes inefficient use of capital and resources will be bad. We just don’t know how bad.

    Best of luck with the bullshit detector, JB. Over and out.

    00

  • #
    doug z

    clarification: “better off” – in relative even if not always absolute terms.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Thanks Doug Z!

    I must admit that the fabric of civilisation will be rent asunder if we accidentally make the poor better off;-)

    00

  • #

    [...] to a protest myself in about forty years but might make it to this one. The original note is posted here. Australian Anti-Carbon Tax [...]

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    I recently discovered that Joe Hockey’s wife Melissa is the head of foreign exchange and global finance at Deutsche Bank in Australia which may explain Joes position on the ETS SADLY.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Damian:

    Hate to crow, but I and others have pointed that very relevant fact numerous times here. And yes, it definitely compromises Hockey IMO.

    00

  • #
    cha-am jamal

    sorry can’t attend as i am in thailand but i will be in perth in spririt.

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    Well said Jo!
    This fiasco of an environmental non-issue of global warming has highlighted huge differences between the people on each side. On the warmist side we have politicians, journalists and greenies who use misinformation, lies, exaggeration, illogical arguments and scare tactics to argue their case and on the sceptical side we have intelligent reasoning and questioning, logical arguments and rational explanations. And that is why the left do not want to have a proper debate on the issue – because they would lose!
    No carbon tax!!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Amanda, lets not get ahead of yourself here. Nomatter who is right in this debate there are a fair share of “politicians, journalists and greenies/rednecks who use misinformation, lies, exaggeration, illogical arguments and scare tactics to argue their case” on both sides.

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    Aussie protests at the carbon tax?

    GOOD ON YER, MATE!!!!!

    Either we kiwis are total sheep or the situation is diffreent here, for i have heard of no such this side of the ditch here in godzone (nz)

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    MattB, you reckon? The great divide between the two sides in terms of intelligent debate is huge and the side of the left is shamefully lacking. Not that we have had much chance for a fair debate because only the ABC will take that on and they make sure the panel is loaded to the left. Most other mainstream media claim ‘the science is settled’.
    Give me one example of a politician or journalist from the sceptical side who used misinformation, lies, exaggeration, etc… to argue the case against global warming and a carbon tax.

    00

  • #

    Thanks to all the people emailing in from overseas, from Italy, New Zealand, the US, the UK… commiserations to the New Zealanders. You lucked out getting that obnoxious legislation through just a few days after climategate, just as Australia was about to do the same, and we almost did it too, and missed it by just one vote.

    But it’s still coming…

    00

  • #

    Amanda, yes I saw some foreigner claiming Abbott had lied and the ABC news laps it up and puts it out there without making him justify or substantiate it. There’s no comparison with a substantiated, recorded, repeated claim that was put to an election and then turned 180 after the fact…

    00

  • #
    Tim

    The ‘big polluters’ are probably scrambling around, targeting large businesses that have a low pollution index, in order to aquire them. In this way they could obtain their carbon credits through a back door.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Amanda you gotta make it more difficult than name 1!!!

    Bolt.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Dellingpole
    Monckton
    Nova
    Abbott

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    Sorry MattB, I meant, give me an example of something someone said that was misleading, untrue, etc.. from the sceptical side.
    Bolt is excellent. Another almost lone voice of reason in the media. He makes ‘Insiders’ bearable and ‘The 7pm Project’ balanced. What has Bolt said that you found so irrational and misleading? I can see we are not going to agree.
    Off to the Melbourne Carbon tax march this morning. I hope you are doing the same somewhere in Australia, Matt. :)

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    MattB – Abbott, Monckton (saw him speak in Melb – articulate, very funny, likable and intelligent), Nova, Dellingpole(?)- you are naming some of my favourite people here. You forgot Prof. Ian Plimer. I suppose you think this scientist speaks untruths too?
    Another thing that i’d like to mention that makes me frustrated. Why are ‘big polluters’ the bad guys? They just took a cheap source of energy (coal) and built a strong and healthy economy with it, in which you and i live wonderful lifestyles. Suddenly emitting carbon dioxide is BAD and the people who use it are BAD by association. These greenies are happy to live the lifestyle, so stop criticizing the industries that made it possible. If there were a cheap alternative source of energy that didn’t produce carbon, they would switch to it. Unfort. solar and wind just aren’t up to it , they are expensive and inefficient. So what are these ‘big polluters’ supposed to do? But no, let’s demonise them because people love to have someone to hate – someone to blame – a scapegoat. And Labor loves to incite hatred to cloud the issue and get their shifty policies through.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It will be interesting to see how the A$ tracks in the lead up to & after an introduction of a carbon tax. The ultimate arbiter of the economic sense of this fraud will be in how the global economy judges our trading status & our credit rating.

    The tax base, which supports the government & provides the services we expect as a developed economy & modern society, will surely shift.

    You have to wonder how many died in the wool “true believer” employees in manufacturing & services will find their career security (mortgages, kids education, health, superannuation……) seismically shifted by the flow-on/multiplier effect of a feel good fraud.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Amanda, when you hare biased it is only ever people on the other side of the fence who misrepresent… funny that.

    00

  • #
    Amanda

    MattB – still waiting for my one example…. Come on Matty, think!
    You know, I used to be a greenie until I realised that they had another agenda, socialism, and their minds were for the most part closed. I do try to keep an open mind.

    Watching “The Great Global Warming Swindle” movie was what started me questioning the science but all I got from my greenie friends was silence. They didn’t want to know.

    I just wish the warmists and the left of politics would argue
    their side with integrity instead of going the man and not the policy.

    Give me ONE example please MattB. Make me think. I dare you.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok – Graphic on recent thread of this site with Australia closed and all boats/people leaving. Claims Australia shut down. qualification – exaggeration.

    Bolt – regular use over a period of time of fraudualant polynomial best fit to temperature date.

    Seriously I cna;t believe your “one example” is a taunt. Note I don’t asky you for one example of when left leaning pollies and journos do the same, as I’m not some sort of brainless fool who thinks it doesn’t happen.

    I can’t believe you think that bolt is not guilty… not even once!

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    Might I suggest that warmist and leftist are not necessarily the same thing?

    I am leftist by political conviction, and climate realist (a better term than skeptic or denier IMO) by study of the evidence.

    so leftist and warmist are not necessarily the same thing: and it strikes me as fallacious to argue from left sympathies against warmism.

    thre is evidence aplenty for the case against warmism without political mud slinging

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    MattB – the graph of Australia closed was a cartoon! Cartoons are supposed to exaggerate and be funny to get a point across.
    As far as Bolt’s fraudulent polynomial best fit temperature data – i’m not sure what you are referring to. I am dubious of all graphs of predictive temp data.
    I would rather listen to the likes of Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova, Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and Lord Monckton any day than the bollocks that comes out of the mouth of this current government and the Canberra press that supports it. But each to their own.

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    My thanks for naming “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I googled it and am now watching it.

    It is a terrible indictment on our educational system that the historical part at least of this film had to made. Surely once any university graduate would have known these things?

    As a keen reader of history I knew of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice AGe so was natutally unimpressed when they claimned CO2 based global warming

    But i did cheer (literally) when one man in the film appealed not to ice cores and such, but to historical records and art works showing the frozen Thames etc.

    An education in the humanities, as I had, can still be useful, even though for much of it i was self taught.

    This is how i knew of the little ice age.

    Plain and simple.

    But thanks for the film and the reminder that even a middle aged arts graduate who reads history for pleasure can get a major issue right

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    Thanks Steve. I’m a little relieved to read a friendly comment. :)
    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fascinating topic. I did Geography as part of my science degree at Uni in the 90′s and learnt quite a bit about climate change and Ice Ages. There are many scientists that don’t get into the politics of it and put it all into perspective. Ian Plimer wrote a good, if very detailed, book on the topic.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes he wrote a very detiled and thouroughly debunked book on the topic. Lol Plimer not getting in to the politics of it all:)

    00

  • #
    Amanda Enright

    I guess Plimer must feel the need to defend his science from the incompetent fools who use it for their own agenda. He was a fascinating man to listen to when he spoke with Lord Monckton… and very nice, not someone you would probably have much time for MattB.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Uploading (rough, uncut) videos from Perth rally to Facebook as I type.
    They’ll all be publically viewable eventually. Janet can see what’s there to start.

    Unfortunately, my camera ran out of storage part-way through Joanne’s talk
    Mea culpa. I should have recorded at 720 instead of 1080 resolution.

    00

  • #

    What will Julia Gillard do with the money if she is foolish enough to introduce a carbon tax on top of all the other taxes? A good way to lose an election and she doesn’t seem to realise it. Her political nouse is sadly lacking so much so that one questions her ability to govern, and this is not the only thing that comes out of the back room. One wonders if she is being set up by her own mob!!!

    00

  • #
    Max

    wow thankyou the whole tax is scam just so they can get our money
    this has really on killing the fact that carbon tax is “good”

    00

  • #
    Peter Thorp

    Has anybody read the article by David Evans regarding the Australian science departments own findings regarding temperature change ?.

    See :- http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

    Regards Peter T

    00

  • #

    I am in Wagga Wagga and would love to be a part of the No Carbon Tax Rally in ways I can, helping out at a stall or contacting people in my town such as my local MPs, Mayor, police. etc. We need an election now, and this is a great opportunity for Wagga to be involved in it. Please email me with NoCarbonTax in the subject line.

    00

  • #

    All Aussies fight this contax, we have green taxes here in the UK. This is the bottom line, extortionat petrol and diesel prices , which in turn puts prices up in the shops and people out of work, can someone tell me, how are these taxes good. Tell all this about climate change to China and India, who are now the worlds biggest polluters.

    00

  • #
    benito

    You say that this tax will effect every transaction we make.

    Phony Tony and his subordinate have stated as recently as yesterday that they do not know who the 500 polluters who will be taxed, really are.

    You supporters of the “one trick pony” are sailing in a leaking boat.

    00