The zeitgeist of the anti-tax revolt in Australia is beginning to gather momentum.
In the last month I’ve met a dozen mining and business leaders, 6 elected members of parliament, and I’ve spoken to 450 pastoralists in remote Australia. Each time the theme is the same: businesses are afraid of the tax, but they are also afraid to speak against it. The phrases I’ve heard specifically are “it’s a vindictive government”, and “they have long memories”. At least one of these business leaders was CEO of a household-name multi-billion dollar company.
It’s the same with business associations and committees. They’re wondering if they should focus on hammering out a better deal in the cat fight for compensation or take the “riskier” position and oppose the carbon tax outright.
For Labor the dark winds of discontent are gathering pace.
Things have gone distinctly pear shaped in the last week for the Labor carbon pricing plan. Polls are punishing the Labor party (it’s the lowest results for them in 15 years); the most powerful union leader in Australia (normally a Labor supporter to the end) has threatened to oppose the tax “if one job is lost”; Andrew Bolt is speculating on just who could replace her, and even Labor MPs are urging Julia Gillard to do something quickly.
Food giants join war on carbon tax Goodman Fielder, George Weston Foods, Nestle Australia, CSR, Laucke Flour Mills, Yakult Australia and Bundaberg Sugar.
Two Fairfax journalists contacted the top 50 ASX companies to ask “Do You support the Governments plan for a carbon price?
| Yes | On the fence | No | Didn’t reply | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survey ofthe Top
50 ASX |
Qantas
Woolworths Suncorp BHP Billiton AGL Energy IAG MAP Group NAB GPT Incitec Pivot Westpac Newcrest |
Santos
Wesfarmers Stockland ANZ Bank Fortescue Metals Fosters CSL Alumina |
Coca-cola Amatil
Woodside Bluescope Steel |
27 companies
did not answer the survey (54%) |
In other words, the most common answer to a question from one of our two major media outlets on the largest piece of legislation proffered for years, is “No Comment”.
But many companies were unwilling to reveal their hand on carbon pricing. The strategy for many is to keep their powder dry until the government provides details about pricing and transitional help.
”It hardly makes sense for us to state a position publicly until we see the details,” one spokesman said. ”It would be like showing your cards in the final round of a high-stakes poker game. Seems a bit silly, doesn’t it?”
However the poker game at play is really just one of trying to pick the winner, and to back the winning horse. The sell-job on the idea that “carbon pricing is inevitable” has been relentless downunder.
The Nation is waking up to the nightmare…
Once the number of business leaders speaking out reaches a critical mass, the free-for-all will ensue. Not only will the less confident speak out, but the risk becomes so much less — the government can’t come after everyone — that the risk could become the fear instead of being seen by shareholders or union members for not opposing the tax that nobody really wanted.
I understand why business leaders are afraid to put their heads above the parapet, but there is no negotiating with a group that bullies and intimidates and bases it’s decisions on fashion or whimsy rather than hard empirical data and sound reasoning. You win a battle and lose the war.
There are few companies that directly benefit from this tax — solar and renewable energy projects, green builders, and electric cars aside — for the rest of the free economy, there is no productivity gain, no competitive advantage, there is just money that could have been spent on their goods or services, but won’t be.
If enough business leaders spoke against this tax, it would be over tomorrow. They need to know they are not alone, and that Australia does not need to price carbon.
h/t Chris Gillham Scribeworks and Jaymez.
Those fence-sitters need to get a spine.
10
Two nights ago, I watched a “town-hall meeting” type television show concerned with global warming and plans to deal with it. All participants were either from advocacy groups or from governmental or NGO administrations and every last one of them was spouting the same mantra: “We must act now and in a major way if we are to effect changes that will save the planet for our children and their children, even if great sacrifice, on our parts, is called for.”
There was no dissent nor discussion on the actuality of perceptions of imminent disaster. The perception that Canada was seen as a “big talk but no action” nation was offered as incentive to comply to Kyoto and beyond. The statement was made that we could easily afford to help non-affluent nations gain our standards of living in a clean and environmentally-conscious way.
They are many and we are few but time and the climate are on our side against these dreams of self-flagellation and prostration before high-ideals. These people are oblivious to reality and that will be their downfall. We must continue our vigilance and resistance to their idiocy.
10
The real question is if the ALP either ditches Julia Gillard for Shorten or Smith or she does a Rudd like mea culpa, how is a minority federal government going to be able to do anything in either house after the senate gets green around the gills in a couple of months?
This has a distinct 1975 deja vu feeling about it.
10
Time for some supportive consumersism.
So next time I go shopping at …(not that W place) Bundaberg sugar, Yakult and Coke. Maybe colorbond would be good for the shed.
Am I a vindictive purchaser with a long memory…YES.
10
The Australian Infantry has been proud to be called “Diggers”, ever since the First World War. So not putting your head above the parapet is somewhat of a tradition down under.
There is another old military saying: “Never share a fox-hole with a hero”. But, of course, if everybody lived by that maxim, we would all be “wee timorous beasties”, living in solitary fox-holes of our own making, and not knowing when to stop digging.
But the Diggers were then; and now is now; and we are fighting different battles – battles of the mind, rather than of terrain – and the safest place to be is with the heroes.
Their memories are their own concern – they have to live with them – but the power to “be vindictive” is not an absolute right of politicians. It is something granted by the will, or the apathy, of the voting public, and that is influenced by party funding. No political party, however vindictive, will bite the hand that feeds it.
In Australia, the majority of political party funding comes from many of the companies on your list. And it is a quid pro quo system, based on the long tradition of “Aussie Mateship”, and, “You scratch my back …”, et cetera.
There are some long-term international games being played in Australia right now; longer-term than just the carbon tax issue. They are about the long-term control of energy and natural resources. “Carbon” is just a convenient label.
A question to ask is, “Why would BHP Billiton, AGL Energy, Incitec Pivot, and Newcrest be in favour of a Carbon Tax, if it had the potential to impact Australia’s overall global competitiveness?”
10
It’s obvious that they’ve been pitching the inevitability of the carbon tax. It’s not inevitable.
Why don’t they make this an Opt in Tax? Qantas, NAB and Westpac and the others can all volunteer to pay more taxes to the government. They can use this as PR that they’re doing their bit to make an irrelevant difference to a problem that doesn’t exist. The Carbon tax supporters can all subsidize said businesses with their custom.
10
Whichever way this thing ends up, the Labor party are going to find that their electorate have “long memories” too. For the supposed party of the working man, they’ll find the working man tends to ask some pretty basic questions. They’re going to be searching for credible replies to them for the next decade. A classic Lose/Lose situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJ0ormH7Ug&feature=related
Pointman
10
I intend to email Woolworths and say that because of their support for their carbon dioxide tax, I will no longer be shopping at their stores .
I do wish Wesfarmers (Coles) would stop fence sitting.
I am also with AGL at the moment, but will change to a different energy supplier if I can find one that doesn’t support the carbon dioxide tax.
10
MadJak makes a good suggestion. If the government thinks Australia wants action on imagined climate horrors, let it be done voluntarily. Companies that want to pay the tax can do so. This, according to the government and its apologists, should give those companies a competitive edge. Consumers can do the same. When they dine at McDonald’s they can be asked, “Would you like carbon credits with that?”
Beware the 1st of Juliar, 2012.
10
Jo
This research shows just how far wide of the mark is a tax on Carbon
Taxing Carbon emissions in Australia will do absolutely nothing to counter mercury pollution in the oceans. The only way to stop pollution is to stop using pollutants like mercury or to find better ways to prevent it from being spread around.
10
And those are the people whose resistance will count the most.
When the business world gets against something it will have a lot of additional weight. What are the stragglers afraid of?
10
Yes, this is a vindictive government. But how long do you think a government can survive if it is at war with it’s electorate? The recent polls give us the answer.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
The biggest mistake is assuming it is solely the ALP and the Greens that are ramming this policy down our throats – the whole government bureaucracy is behind it – who do you think convinced Turnbull?
This isn’t about saving the planet, (though the useful idiots believe it is) but on making us live a more sustainable lifestyle. It’s called creeping socialism and like a death from a thousand cuts.
Until and unless we take the Fabians head on for what they, then you will be playing their game, one of obtuse rhetoric and immense patience to implement their world socialist state by a creeping infiltration of society’s institutions. Remember that most of the world already lives by this odious political philosophy, or let’s say it’s the absence of capitalism that is its hallmark.
Yet so few are prepared to identify the Fabians directly – we should shine all our lights to them, and show Australians the wolf in sheeps clothing that has been among us all these years.
10
Treeman @ #10
Come up with some hard empirical fact that mercury is a product of burning fossil fuels, apart from proving they are also fossil fuels.
10
This is interesting, I wonder?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHlWdZgJcRY
10
there was a post at Catallaxy Files a couple of days ago:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/
Now Adam Smith was talking about price fixing but I have noticed this Govt does like to keep businesses ‘inside the room’; remember the Mining Tax debacle and Rudd saying to the mining heads ‘We have long memories guys’ … I don’t know why big business would take any notice of weasal words like that … if I was a big business I’d regard that threat by an elected Govt as blackmail. Australian big businesses have responsibilities but a responsibility to kowtow to the Govt is not one of them. So I hope they do not fall for this as the miners seem to have done.
10
A lot of this depends on the Windsor and Oakeshott idiots, if they vote against the co2 tax the legislation can’t get up.
Perhaps these two jellybacks might grow a brain and spine, who knows.
I just wish every Aussie citizen and pollie could have a look at this info from the EIA. It just proves there is zero we can do about cutting world co2 emissions, but don’t expect[snip] like Matt B to understand any of it. I think his type needs a co2 emissions for Dummies and even then I’m not sure he’d understand. [snip]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
10
from the dept of intended or unintended consequences!
19 April: Age: Adam Morton: ‘Dirty’ power stations warning
AUSTRALIA’S ”dirtiest” coal-fired power stations, including Hazelwood and Yallourn in Victoria, are likely to remain open, while less polluting plants are closed and replaced if Labor offers a blanket multibillion-dollar compensation scheme with its carbon price.
A submission to the multi-party climate committee meeting in Canberra today says there will be a ”perverse environmental outcome” if the government repeats its 2009 offer of $7.3 billion in handouts to coal power generators over a decade.
The submission says the plan could result in the closure of some black coal plants in New South Wales and Queensland, while the ageing brown coal generators in Victoria’s LaTrobe Valley – which are up to 40 per cent more carbon dioxide intensive – stay open.
Bruce Mountain, an energy industry expert and director of Carbon Market Economics, said a rethink was needed…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/dirty-power-stations-warning-20110418-1dlq4.html
10
Louis Hissink@14
Nobody said that Louis. If you look closely the statement is “Methylmercury is a neurotoxin that can cause central nervous system damage and comes from burning fossil fuels”
Why don’t you try to prove it doesn’t?
10
Whichever way you look at it, the majority of Australian businesses do not endorse a carbon tax. Fence sitting or abstaining from answering is not an endorsement.
But then, Australian businesses sell stuff to the Australian public. And the Australian public do not support a carbon tax by recent polling.
I imagine a few more industries will tentatively dip their toe into the water of denouncing the tax. Like the mining tax before it, it will become a flood of negative opinion, and the government will fold under the pressure, either dropping the policy, dropping the leader, and possibly both. Unlike the mining tax, the government does not hold a majority and clings onto power with a tenuous grip.
I honestly do not know what they were thinking when they announced this mess, and then proceeded to contradict themselves every couple of days. This ad-hoc policy on the run approach needs to be purged from governments nationwide.
The bright news is that carbon pricing of any form is going to be more toxic than the dreaded word ‘workchoices’going forwards. So we should see the end of this disaster permanently, once this all works through the system. Any mere mention of the word ‘carbon tax’ will send future Labor leaders furiously signing bits of paper denying it all in front of radio hosts.
10
The big companies supporting the tax do so because it is to their advantage. They will work with the government to minise the impact on their operation while making sure that any regulations will restrict competitors and make it difficult for new companies to enter the market. This is a great advantage if you have a significant external market because you are defended from competitve attack in your home market and base. This is how fascism starts . If this type of activity goes on for too long, the country becomes ruled by a duopoly of big government and a few big businesses and your personal liberty is gone.
10
The phrases I’ve heard specifically are “it’s a vindictive government”, and “they have long memories”.
The socialists are behaving true to form; remember the National Socialist Workers {labour} Party, that’s right the Nazis. They used to behave like that if you opposed them. This gang are not much better. Behind that facade I believe Gillard is a vicious individual intent on pushing her ideology onto the whole population.
Time for revolt!!
10
My comment to the story below got published, but they did change some of my wording. I used the term ’emissions of plant food’ which they changed to carbon emissions. I also mentioned that CSIRO is paid handsomely by the Govt, who also happens to be their major customer.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/carbon-tax-will-destroy-major-centres-such-as-port-pirie-and-whyalla/story-e6frg6p6-1226041270107
10
Just heard Windsor’s comments on B Joyce nominating for New England. Souded like a man who might have been a bit premature in counting on a full term’s super. ( in spite of what the coal miners paid him for Cintra)
10
Val @ 16
Combet’s plea for corporate Australia to have confidential negotiations with the government is an outrage in a democracy. And this from a former ACTU Secretary. Presumably the CEO’s involved in the negotiations are not to discuss these “ïn the room” discussions with their employees and the unions. Hold on. Wasn’t Combet the same person who admonished Peter Reith over the confidential negotiations with Patricks that sacked a couple of thousand wharfies? But according to Greg Combet Minister for Climate Change confidential negotiations are OK with CEO’s of Bluescope and the mining companies that will put many tens of thousands out of work permanently? Not only a liar but a disgraceful hypocrite.
10
Hi Joanne. Pie Chart time ! This will clearly start to show the ‘trend’ to all and sundry 🙂
10
Hold the celebrations of a victory over the tax. Gillard and Combet have an important ally. Charles Manson breaks his silence to speak out against climate change! With Flannery and Manson on board how can this fail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html
10
And that is the nub of the problem. We have decision makers with little or no capacity for deductive reasoning.
10
@Connolly
Remember Combet’s ‘Excuse Me’ quote, from the interveiw with Paddy Manning of the SMH.
I read all of Paddy Manning’s other articles over the weekend, well worth a read, there is lots of ammo in them for you.
10
Pie chart time indeed. It seems to me that from the above figures, less than 25% of the top 50 support a carbon tax. Those companies should be contacted and advised of their poor choice.
I note that 2 banks are included, they have always been in favor of the climate tax in one form or another as they expect increased revenue from it.
10
Only because they don’t understand the science..
10
This is an odd quote ”It hardly makes sense for us to state a position publicly until we see the details,” one spokesman said. ”It would be like showing your cards in the final round of a high-stakes poker game. Seems a bit silly, doesn’t it?”
To me the reason given is strange. You’d not state a public position at this stage, without seeing the details, is that how would you know what your position was if you don’t know the details. They’ve not been dealt cards yet. If they have they dont know the rules of the game they are playing.
I think at this stage the best a company could give is an opinion on the concept of introducing carbon pricing in general. How do Bluescope know they are against without seeing the details. How do Qantas know they are infavour without seeing the details.
I’d be concerened as a shareholder to see that a company was making statements for or against when they don’t know the details.
10
Connelly@6
totally agree
And big business is stupid if it falls for it
After all what can the Govt do if it won’t
oh wait … there is the taxing power
10
[…] much longer before more business leaders get vocal about the disasters of ALP policy? Jo Nova reports. In the last month I’ve met a dozen mining and business leaders, 6 elected members of parliament, […]
10
Mattb, I don’t need to know the details of the carbon tax to know I’m against it. It doesn’t matter what they charge per ton, it will not help the environment and it will hurt the economy.
10
I think another point skipped over on this is the threat of noisy public protests and boycotts by bullying mobs like Greenpeace, as seen recently with the ANZ hitpiece. While these noisy protests are unlikley to have any real impact on the sales of the company, it takes time and money to fix up public image after being dragged through the dirt by youthful useful idiots still using playground politics to get their way. Thus it’s not only a vengeful government to worry about, it’s a bunch of rent-a-crowd idiots turning up at your stores waving placards and hurling abuse (or worse, as we saw recently in London).
It would be very hard for a CEO to justify head-above-the-parapet behaviour to a board and shareholders (some of which are likely to be in the alarmist camp) unless they can clearly spell out a material threat to the company. This is probably why we see bluescope steel coming out strongly – because of the easily calculated direct threat and lack of impact from protests, but others staying meek and mild. I would guess the closer to the customer the company, the more shy they will be. Someone like Harvey Norman will never say a thing, even though they are a massive user of power and transportation fuels.
I must admit, though, I might mention my distaste at the positions of several of the banks that have put their hand up. I’ve got a meeting with a branch manager next week so it’s a good time to drop in the fact that I’m thinking of moving to a company without a pro-tax stance.
As I say to other people – mention it to the footsoldiers without being rude. Complain about Target’s hypocritical plastic bags policy. Mention it to your branch manager of the local bank. Eventually all these little interactions make their way up the food chain as staff complain about getting questioned on it all the time. These companies are hyper-aware of what the public are saying about them at the front line (unless they have brain-dead management and blame culture).
10
Mattb : we’re rehashing the same arguments here. A while ago it was the miniscule cost increase on a can of coke. The point is : why pay even a fraction of a cent more when it makes no difference to long-term global climate? An inneffectual policy is ineffectual, no matter how smug it makes you feel. What matters is results, not feelings. Even if there is no direct increase in costs there is always a regulatory cost as new staff have to be hired, trained and paid to shuffle paper for no outcome whatsoever. An economy should not have hordes of workers shuffing unproductive papers any more than a village on a remote island can afford a wallpaper consultant instead of an extra fisherman. Productivity is all about maximising the work done by the dollars spent. Any level of increased regulation and paper shuffling for no increased output is by definition reducing the nations productivity, which leads to its prosperity. We all think it doesn’t matter if a tiny amount of tax is taken, or a tiny amount of people are counting carbon dioxide – but over the larger pattern of the entire economy, it does matter.
10
I would be expect the top 50 ASX companies to have done their own risk analysis on the various forms of carbon pricing/taxing and to have developed strategies to stay profitable come what may. Their answer to the survey is probably a reflection of another issue that affects their profitability … perceptions of government , public and competitors reactions to the answer given to the question. That is why most are non-commital.
The surprising element is the apparent absence of a corporate voice probing the science. Most of these companies would have staff or consultants who could readily identify the validity of the errors in the Gore/IPCC case that are endlessly discussed on blogs such as this. Maybe I have answered my own question…if they can still make a profit regardless of the facts of the science who cares…same logic as Iraq and WMD?
10
Matt b at #32
Matt – the problem with any carbon tax is it is assumed to fix catastrophic global warming.
There is no catastrophic global warming.
This is quite clear from ERBE, CERES and SCL vs temperature data.
Therefore any carbon tax is either wrong or dishonest.
10
Several of the companies in the Yes list have direct contact with the public as part of their business. A couple of comments here have been about stopping being a customer of companies on this list. I imagine there would be a much larger number of fervent wamers who would do the same for a No, and probably a significant number for a No Comment. So it’s a tricky decision. It’s not about the science but about perceptions. That’s why the latest poll results are so important. Easy for Bluescope since the damage is so obvious.
mattb. I’m a Bluescope shareholder and they have my full support.
10
Jo in #34 – yes of course you do but you don’t think AGW is happening. That is what I would also think if I agreed with you. I was just trying to point out that regardless of a Top 50 Company’s stance on the science I’d expect them to examine the actual proposal (as yet unknown) before stating a position of support/oppposition for the ALP/Gillard/Combet plan.
If the company response is based on the SCIENCE then only 3 are against the science. It would be logical to assume that in fact 20 companies support a “carbon price” in principle… with 8 of those sensibly on the fence pending details. A further 27 didn’t answer the survey which is essentially sitting on the fence. Only 3 were against. If you disagree with the science then you would be against any sort of carbon tax… you don’t need to wait for the details of the carbon tax to know you are against the science.
That’s a pretty good survey outcome for the science to be honest, but not so much for the ALP as clerly the details are what will put companies on or offside.
Personally I highly doubt that any of Woodside, Coke or Bluescope are skeptical of the science.
10
David C I wonder if a company could be tempted to support a tax as they negotiate a favourable outcome, even if they thought the science was rubbish?
10
So this is why we need a carbon tax JooLIAR/MattB?
10
John Watt in #38… indeed it would be useful if the reporters also reported the Top 50 ASX viewpoints on the science. COuld probably glean that just from websites.
10
Care to explain this one away with leftist politics MattB..? How will throwing money at this erase the problem MattB..?
10
John Watt:
One of the problems with Climate Science is the generally sound practice among scientists of not expressing a view on areas outside their own discipline. Particulary when they claim a consensus, because these do exist in most fields about most things. It generally takes quite a lot of work to get enough of a background to go against a consensus (as in, years). In Climate Science it isn’t so hard (there’s almost nothing by way of background) but most scientists wouldn’t try. At first galance you would need to gain expertise in atmospheric physics, hydrology, oceanology, physics of aerosols and clouds, the Navier-Stokes equation … . There are all these subdisciplines (and more) but as far as I can see none of them make any serious contribution to the political version of climate science. All there is is the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming, and for a while there it was warming; now it’s stopped. And look, it’s been this warm in the past. OK, that’s not too hard. And also not hard to see through the response to that: that the cooling is just a reflection of natural variability. So: temperature goes up, AGW; down, natural fluctuations. Most scientists would be too embarrassed to put an argument like that in their own field.
10
MattB Bluescope may just have the following objection to the proposal. A corporation in a fiercly competative market which is technologically competative will both be taxed against its competators and rely on a government “rebate/subsidy” to remain competative against its untaxed competition. Can you name any manufacturing industry or corporation that had or has a future in this country reliant on government subsidy in a competative market? O sorry forgot – shipbuilding, auto manufacturing, footwear, clothing . . . . Maybe Bluescope doesnt want to become an industry mendicant
10
Well now the science really is settled, Charles Manson, Envirovangelis, now we know who Flannery is chanelling…….
10
MattB.. How does this change your reliance on.. hair products for example.. considering the ridiculous “flavour saver” some guys keep below their lip (I know, since it started in 2002, the flavour saver has been in the bad books with me). I can’t stand trends. Fact of life.. Deal with it..
10
True News and Val
Combet’s hypocracy is simply breathtaking. Here is a man who lecturers those of us living in fibro country that the science is in and to unquestioningly follow the “experts” Flannery and Garnaut. But not in regard to rising sea levels apparently.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/combets-new-luxury-home/2007/11/15/1194766872658.html
10
PaulM @ 48
I have it on good authority from a peer reviewed study (that iI just cant put a paw on at the moment) that 95% of all homicidal maniacs support the belief that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. And as MattB would say – so there!
10
MattB..
The Australian Imperial Applications Act, section 8, clause 12 states:
“All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction of any person are illegal and void”.
Show me a legal and valid proof-of-claim where Man-made CO2 is proven a problem to the environment AND show me where and why humans should be FINED LEGALLY to this ideal..
You have been warned..
10
“BlueScope Steel believes that climate change is a serious global issue that requires a global response. Policies that only require developed countries to reduce their emissions are not likely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.” from the website.
So current stance is consistent with their policy so no real surprises there. Given that Australia will not commit to larger cuts without a global scheme then the broader govt position is also consistent with Bluescope’s.
10
Yep MattB, you are right; BlueScope Steel, like a number of other leading corporations officially pays lip service to the AGW agitprop; privately, that is another matter; but that simply makes big business craven and hypocritical; in other words business as usual.
You, and your fellow AGW acolytes, on the other hand, are nuts.
10
For all you know I stand to make gazillions out of this caper Cohers.
10
Right, so you’re Flannery.
10
No – but I do sometimes wear a Flannie.
10
Mattb @55
So that’s what it’s all about for you, not idealism, not saving the world. It’s all, if this gets through I’m going to make a pile of money.
No wonder you are so enthusiastic in promoting the nonsense…
10
Mike – I wish. Alas I must just be nuts. Or right.
10
“I must just be nuts. Or right.”
could be both of course
10
Matt B @ 53
No you definitely are nuts. Your post is a non sequitur. Bluescope opposes the tax because they will be the only steel maker in the Asian market saddled with a carbon dioxide tax. And steel imports into Australia will not be taxed. So there is no level playing field. Pretty simple isnt it?
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/no-tax-on-imports-to-help-bluescope/2107598.aspx
10
Mattb @59
Yep, obviously nuts to want to pay money to line the pockets of others for a non-existent threat that even if did exist the money would have no effect.
Do you open you’re wallet every time someone tries to scare the life out of you with their scam?
You know their are bears out there Matt, they want to get you, they want to eat you. This stone in my hand will protect you from them and it will only cost you $100. It won’t, you say? There is no threat, you say? That’s ridiculous. Prove it! And shouldn’t you pay me the $100? You know, just in case, it’s only $100….
10
There are no bears around here sorry Mike. Have you got any rocks more suited to snakes and spiders?
p.s. do you sell beards too?
10
[…] The sleepers awake: the seige begins […]
10
Too subtle for you Matt? I know there’s no
bearscatastrophic global warming. Called an analogy. It’s you who believe any old scare story.Like I said if you were making money from it I would have at least credited you with some brains. As it is, well….
10
I imagine Matt was the first guy on the acid precipitation band wagon… *sigh*
10
Cam, “acid precipitation band” Is that an Aussie music group from the 60’s?
10
Put some scrubbers on your coal plants and build some nukes…while you’re at it, put a bounty on greens…as for increased mercury in the environment…up here in Canada,we were told to save energy, buy compact flourescent light bulbs…guess what they contain…considered toxic waste and no one knows where to recycle them…guess where they’re made…China…5 or 6 nukes should put Oz on the right track…remember…love carbon dioxide…it’s great for the environment…greens, not so much
10
World ‘experts; declare that tax on carbon has no effect on CO2 emissions.
Why insist on having one?
Keeps the Greens support for a givernemnt that does not know where it is going and iata it hasone hidden,has no idea how to get there.
End of story.
10
“There are no bears around here sorry Mike. ”
We know that, but it is nice to see you finally admitting it.
“Have you got any rocks more suited to snakes and spiders?”
See, you want to stone the Labor pollies too, join the queue !!
10
“Connolly” (27),
Here is another article about this “pillar of society” who supports this global warming FRAUD.
Charles Manson: Global Warming Prophet……..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/charles-manson-global-warming-prophet.html
10
How many more hints do they need? Gillard is finished……..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_many_more_hints_do_they_need_gillard_is_finished/
10
The Gillard Government’s target has become so preposterously vast that only a fool or a liar could pretend it’s achievable…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/giullards_target_blow_out_twice_the_cut_in_half_the_time/
10
I happen to have a few shares in BHP Billiton, because the Billiton side is a South African company which re-listed in London. I don’t remember being asked if I thought the company should volunteer for a stupid tax that is demonstrably contrary to my interests.
Come to think of it, though: that goes for all of you in Australia, too, doesn’t it?
10
Companies like BHP Billiton think that they’re too big to be allowed to fail. Bailouts come courtesy of the taxpayer.
It doesn’t care about the carbon tax because it’ll simply pass on the costs to consumers. The financial turnover won’t reduce and the executives will get their bonuses and all will be right with the world. With production volume dicatated largely by non-discretionary consumption, the numbers below the line will simply increase as the tax is applied.
And there’s handy trade that they can do if they can suck governments into allocating more allowances for emissions than are actually needed.
Fred Hayek writes on The Moral Imperative of the Market
Excerpt:
10
Treeman:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:34 am
CO2 isn’t as pollutant but mercury is. Nearly all environmental mercury comes from burning coal.
10
There certainly is an organized system to squelch dissent in the business community. I can attest to that. The whole carbon business is sort of a cross between a mafia protection racket and a 14th century Priest selling indulgences.
Anyone that doesn’t play the game and pay the kings will be sent to hell on earth.
10
I have an answer to this whole carbon tax debate, we dont the baseload power generators in Australia, stop providing power for 2 or 3 days at a time across the nation and lets just see how green these so called greenies really are, let them generate there own power from there magic wind and solar generators that have broke countries like Spain and Portugal and Ireland. The state of New Hampshire in the US saw the light and dumped there carbon tax, California the queen of green states is now a basket case, companies are leaving in there droves to where? Texas & Arizona states that have a future. Wake up Australia, we are fast going down the same path that has destroyed other nations.
11
When you hear Greg Combet and Christine Milne claiming that the Carbon tax will create jobs, this is probably what they had in mind….
“…the sad story of how expensive tax collection is in the United States. It’s probably a similar tale in all developed countries.
Mr. Laffer claims that “tax compliance employs more workers than Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald’s, IBM and Citigroup combined.” And the 30% premium only represents the “accountable” costs related to tax collection and compliance. It does not take into account the distortions created by the taxes themselves on the behavior of individual taxpayers and corporations which pay taxes.
The worse thing is that tax cuts probably do not reduce the absolute costs of tax collection and compliance so that when taxes are cut, the 30% premium probably goes up a few percentage points.”
10
“There are few companies that directly benefit from this tax — solar and renewable energy projects, green builders, and electric cars aside — for the rest of the free economy, there is no productivity gain, no competitive advantage”
OK so using this approach we should just do away with all company taxes and regulations against pollution, exploitation and environmental degradation. Temperatures have increased globally and Australia in line with atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 100 years. Either we agree something needs to be done and do it or we continue to bury our heads in the sands of scepticism.
10
Barrie @ 80
No, as usual, someone suffers in with co2 phobia and equates rejection of regulation of a harmless gas with complete rejection of all pollution controls. You think rejection of one bad policy equates rejection of all policies.
Rejecting regulation of co2 is not the same as rejecting control of something like, say Mercury or Lead or other compounds with proven negative effects. Nobody here is proposing that, and if you bother to read many people will ask that money be spent on real environmental problems affecting Australians right now, every day.
Oh, and by the way, temperatures haven’t gone anywhere near keeping up with co2 concentrations. The population of cross breed dogs has increased along with the temperature in the last 100 years. So it must be all those designer breeds causing warming, yes? If you’ve got proof to the contrary, I’m sure the IPCC would love to hear from you, as their existing predictions are looking pretty offmark these days.
I do agree something needs to be done. The ridiculous distortions and wasting of money needs to stop. There needs to be an end to subsidies for inefficient energy production, and an immediate shutdown of all government departments related to climate, except for the CSIRO which should continue to research the atmosphere. That money needs to be returned to taxpayers so that they can spend it how they see fit, and create the new industries and jobs for the next century. Or used to pay off the large amounts of national debt created in the past 4 years which will act as a brake on future growth and prosperity of the country.
The last thing we as a nation (and indeed as a planet) need to do is devote precious resources to the construction of inefficient energy creation while a cheaper and better alternative is available. Even worse than that is to setup an inefficient taxation system intentionally designed to churn money and redistribute wealth. It’s like a starving village banning rifles and forcing the use of bows and arrows. The productive and efficient win the race, not the ones who put the most effort in and proclaim themselves the most noble.
ps you wouldnt’ be barrie harrop, would you?
10
Hi BRC,
Thanks for your reply, but no I’m not Barrie Harrop. I also do not have a “CO2 phobia” just an inquisitve nature that lead me to question some of the ideas being proclaimed by various groups claiming to be “sceptics”. The evidence just does not support your case that greenhouse gass emissions have not influenced the world’s climate.
The argument that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the main cause of global warming are based on the following:
1) Even Jo Nova herself agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs elctromagnetic radiation (i.e. heat) emitted from the earth over a range of wavelengths.
2) I think all people now accept that the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have been increasing as a direct result of human activity over the past 100 years or so.
3) Global temperatures have increased over the past century on both land and sea by an average 0.7 degrees. While there are fluctuations due to normal climate variability as well as influence of aerosols from volcanoes and human emissions, this increase has been relatively steady – particularly since 1970.
4) The increase in temperatures is supported by rising sea levels (as water heats up it expands) which are less subject to annual fluctuations than air temperatures.
5) CO2 concentrations alone explain 80% of the variability in surface temperatures and 90% of variability in sea levels over the past 100 years.
6) There has been a measurable decrease in heat loss from the earth at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses over the past 40 years providing strong evidence that the rise in temperature is a result of CO2 reducing heat loss from the earth.
7) No potential factors influencing the earth’s climate (including sunspots, solar radiation, or cosmic rays) have been shown to be associated with the observed increase in temperatures. In fact solar activity has been declining from the past 40 years).
Thus, CO2 remains the only factor that explains the observations. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is therefore the appropriate approach to reduce the risk of further increases in temperature and the associated impacts of climate change.
10
Barrie – you’re just misguided here. If you truly are inquisitive you’ll eventually walk into the light. Most of your points are adequately rebutted in the skeptics handbook on this site, I suggest you have a read.
1) Yes, she does. She also maintains that it will add at most 1 degree of warming. The rest of the ‘catastrophic’ warming will come from positive feedbacks as constructed in the IPCC GCM simulations. There is no evidence to support these scenarios and the IPCC admits it doesn’t have a clue about the impact of clouds.
2) Most likely correct.
3) Not true at all. Global temperatures ended up 0.7 over an arbitary period such as 100 years, but in fact there was peaks and troughs in that time – periods of significant warming and significant cooling. It is incorrect to state there was a gradual trend. The warming trend matches for the 1970-200 period and the 1910-1940 period, a fact acknowedged by Phil Jones of the CRU.
4) The rate in sea level rise has decreased, which matches the fact that the temperature has stopped rising. Thus sea level rise matches overall temperature of the system. That temperature has stopped rising since about 2001 as shown by the UAH satellite record.
5) That is just a garbage statement with no credible source. Didn’t you know that 45.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
6) Yes, the earth is cooling as shown by the trend since 2000. A cooler body emits less radiation. You can’t say that it is over 40 years because the satellite that records this accurately was only launched in 2003. My oven emits less radiation when I turn it from position 3 to position 2. Hardly a surprise – you’re just confirming that the system overall is cooling. See also falling global temps, and lessening in the rate of sea level rise. All this points to the fact that co2 is not a major driver of the global climate.
7) *in some scientists opinion* no other *known* factors are influencing the climate. The cosmic ray studies are very young and need to be explored further. In contrast to co2, they do show very good correlation, which still isn’t a proof of causation. But co2 doesn’t even show good correlation. By that standard, co2 is not associated either because the relationship has never stood scrutiny. It doesn’t explain the earlier warming periods of 1910-1940, it doesn’t explain the cooling from 1940-1970 and it doesn’t explain the flatline/slight cooling since about 2000. Because co2 keeps going up in a straight line, but temps stubbonly refuse to follow. The so-called hotspot described by physicists as being evidence of co2 caused warming doesn’t exist, despite valiant efforts to locate it. The fact is co2 based models have had very poor forecasting ability and their fundamental assumptions have proven to be falsified on a regular basis. This is true at the scientific level, and true at the public level where the scares of ten years ago (endless droughts, no snow) have been seamlessly switched to endless floods and blizzards. This alone is evidence of how patched together the theory is.
Thus co2 doesn’t explain the observations any better than any other factor. The truth is we don’t know. It’s not prudent at all to throw away cheap energy on the say-so of a small group of scientists, who by their own private admissions, don’t really understand how it all works. Not only that, but
The only sensible strategy is to continue to build the worlds wealth and build more power generation, water storage and agricultural technology so that people can prosper no matter what the climate throws at them. Non co2 intensive power is already here if we want it – it’s called nuclear. But various factors prevent widescale rollout of that technology, so any attempt to tax people based on energy has to be seen as just a way of increasing taxation and wealth redistribution. By any reasonable measure taxation/pricing strategies do not change the overall emissions – they either just increase revenues, or shift production to countries without the same regime. Using inefficient energy wins no prizes – it reduces quality of life for everyone. As I’ve stated before, you don’t get paid more money for painting a house with a toothbrush – it’s results that count, no effort or intention.
10
Hi BRC
I have read Jo’s sceptics handbook in detail found that her arguments just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I think you need to check out your data sources.
To answer your specific points
1) There is plenty of evidence for positive feedbacks. For example, hot air holds more water vapour (a potent greenhouse gas as admitted by Jo herself) than cold air. Thus, higher temperatures result in more water vapour and greater warming. This had been measured and (contrary to Jo’s claim) is an integral component in climate models (see http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html). Other feedbacks include melting sea ice (confirmed), warming oceans which hold less CO2 (luckily not yet confirmed in situ although well understood if you have ever left a bottle of softdrink in the sun) and melting Arctic Tundra releasing methane and CO2 (confirmed).
2) Thanks nice to know we agree on soemthing.
3)and 4) Temperature data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt and
Sea level data from http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html
both show a clear warming trend that has continued up until 2010.
5) Plotting atmopheric CO2 concentrations (from here http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/) against the above data gives R2 values of 80% and 92% for temperature sea levels respectively. Thus, CO2 explains 80% of variation in temperature and 92% of variation in sea level.
6) The measured reduction in heat loss and falling temperatures in the upper atmosphere contrast sharply with rising tempreature in the lower atmophere as seen here: http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/radiosonde.html. This indicates that the lower atmosphere in warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling (i.e. the earth is not cooling down and the the measured increase in temperatures in the lower atmosphere cannot be due to the sun, but can be explained by CO2 and water vapour acting like an insulation blanket).
7) Please read my previous comment which explains the cause of the slight cooling between 1940 and 1970. Also can you give me a reference which shows some other factor that might explain the variation in temperatures. The relationship between temperature and solar activity that I was referring to can be found here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-the-sun-affects-climate.html. It shows a clear negative correlation between the two since 1980 while this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png shows a regular 10 year cycle that ossilates up and down, but does not follow the increase in temperatures. It may however, explain some of the natural variation temperatures (i.e. some of the remaining 20% not explained by CO2 alone!
Best Wishes,
Barrie
10
Hey guys, I watched Alex Jones’ movie “Fall of the Republic” last night and although I am not naive I found it very disturbing. If even a 1/4 of it is true and I believe it is we have a hell of a fight on our hands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Please watch it and let me know your thoughts.
I was under the impression we were against “Alarmists” but it appears there are stronger alliances with a more serious hidden agenda at large.
very very scary !
10
[…] business leaders are brave enough to say the bleeding obvious, and I’ve mentioned before that many fear retribution. Gina Rinehart has published an article in Australian Resources and Investment this month (see […]
10