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

The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treason

Emails are flying, submissions are flooding in. It’s a nation in uproar. The implications of what Henry Ergas wrote are setting off a wave of fear and anger. People are using words like “sickening”, “shocking” and describing Gillard’s actions as “vindictive” and a “treacherous spoiler”, and using the word treason. There’s a plea: “God help us!”

Here’s a few samples of what has been CC’d to me.

UPDATE: I should have added that I put the first email up to show just how deep the sense of betrayal runs.  I don’t think Gillards actions represent a grand well thought out plot. This is scrabbling desperation to notch up a “success” (the country be damned). Even she advised Rudd to give up the ETS. A weak government is the most dangerous kind.

——————————————————————————————-

Dear John,

Please drop everything and listen to this:

Professor Henry Ergas reveals the hidden deadly dangers in the Carbon Tax legislation to Alan Jones.

The vindictive implications for Australia are worse than horrendous.

Listen here and be shocked to the core.

The shameful and treacherous group (loosely described as the “government” of this country) should be thoroughly exposed as SPOILERS [snip cliche].

PLEASE BRING THIS TO EVERYONE’S ATTENTION!

SECOND:

The second response registers the telling impact this dynamite interview is having on ordinary Australians as they come to grips with the explosive revelations made in this interview. The reaction of people hearing this for the first time is bad enough, however once its insidious message filters through, it becomes overpowering in the utter sense of hopelessness it engenders. The Australian people are just now beginning to feel like the proverbial rabbit caught in the full headlight glare of what is being proposed in the parliament of our beloved country right now, and it is sickening: -

———————————————————

Date: 20 September 2011 6:55:18 AM AEST

To: Ben

Subject: God help us all

Ben,

This morning I listened again to the exchange between Professor Ergas and Alan Jones.

There can be no mistaking that what is being planned by Julia Gillard is both vengeful and completely treasonous.

Never before has a government legislated the deliberate and permanent destruction of its country’s economic future viability. There is NO other word than “treason” in the English to appropriately describe the intent of the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation.

This woman, unable to accept that she is now the subject of ridicule and scorn from the majority of Australians appears to have become completely unhinged. So determined is she to punish this country and its people for daring to doubt and mock her, she is planning to the equivalent of a massive “Suicide Bomber” strike.

The Japanese used the word “Kamikaze” to describe its suicide bomber pilots during World War II.

Today, that word applies equally to Australia’s Prime Minister .. although her motives are infinitely more warped and seemingly of a revengeful, personal nature.

The legislative weapon of mass destruction that this red-haired mad woman intends to detonate in the heart of Australia’s parliament has been maliciously designed to destroy immediately, yet it has been constructed to deliver fallout with a deliberate and deadly radio-active half-life of forever!

God help us all as this evil and godless creature of communism seeks the worst for us all.

H/t Jeff Greenwood

——————————————-

Is this legislation unconstitutional?

The blogger BarnabyisRight is calling the legislation “unconstitutional” and canvassing legal routes to seek a High Court injunction. It’s an interesting theme, with great potential to stop the whole Circus dead in it’s tracks.

UPDATE: Barnabyisright has popped in at #4 (and #5):

“Please consider adding your name (and relevant details) to the JSC submission at my blog. Given the debacle and resultant political embarrassment the Government has endured arising from having their Malaysia “Solution” smacked down in the High Court, I believe it is worth our giving them food for thought as to the possibility of having the Constitutionality of their so-called “Clean Energy” legislation likewise challenged in the High Court.

Explanation here, submission here.”

People are trying every angle under the sun

There is also a Petition to The Queen. We can only hope. (No I don’t like the chances but it’s a fair thing to ask).

——————————————

Other examples of submissions

From Anton Lang about the “clean energy” details

The Joint Select Committee for The Clean Energy Bills,
Stuart Robert MHR,

Sirs,

With the ensuing passage of these Bills through the House and then The Senate, I was wondering if members in favour of these Bills might perhaps be able to bring Australians along with them by explaining how these Bills might facilitate the move to the current Clean Energy options of choice, Wind Power and the two versions of Solar Power, Solar Photovoltaic, and Concentrating Solar.

Perhaps they might be able to point out just one plant in existence on the whole of Planet Earth, or even a plant that is in planning that can produce the same electrical power for consumption that is currently being generated by one large scale coal fired power plant, of which there are many in existence here in Australia.

  1. Perhaps they might mention how much power will actually be generated for consumption by this one example of any Renewable Plant.
  2. Perhaps they might mention on what time frame a renewable plant of this nature might be delivering its power.
  3. Perhaps they might mention the cost of this equivalent Plant.
  4. Perhaps they might mention how long it will take to construct this plant from the planning stage to the power delivery stage.
  5. Perhaps they might mention how long a plant of this nature might last.
  6. Perhaps they might mention how much Government (taxpayers) money will be given to (a) the construction of this plant, and (b) the subsidising of the generated electricity to the grid in an effort to make it somehow competitive with current power generation from coal fired power.
  7. Perhaps they might mention how much the cost of retail electricity to all consumers will increase with the introduction of a renewable plant of this nature.


There’s really no point in addressing any of the 7 responses mentioned here, because there is no equivalent plant of this nature in existence anywhere in the World, and there is none planned or even contemplated in the near future.

Yours Sincerely.

Anton Lang.

———————————-

The bills are against our wishes, and don’t make economic or scientific sense

To the persons responsible for the carbon tax bills, after a cursory reading of said bills please receive my submission as follows.

As an Australian citizen by birth, I, [insert your name and address] am deeply concerned that the proposed laws are unsound, unjustified, incomprehensible, or just plain wrong, particularly as:

  1. An overwhelming majority of Australian voters believed that there would be NO carbon tax (or anything similar) from either major political party at the last federal election.
  2. They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.
  3. The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.
  4. There is NO economic benefit to Australians in increasing their cost of energy, particularly as we have an abundant, and relatively cheap, source of coal.
  5. There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.
  6. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.
  7. The need for so-called ‘carbon polluters’ to buy emission-permits will see a massive transfer of Australia’s inherent wealth to other countries with NO benefit for Australians, nor the environment, nor humanity.
  8. There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.
  9. NO future government will be able to change these laws easily to suit the prevailing conditions without a substantial expense to the Australian taxpayer. See Note (+) below.
  10. If there is really a need to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels then the proposed laws are NOT rational, NOT logical, and do NOT cover all aspects and users of all of those fuels.

In summary, I submit that the propose laws covered by the carbon tax bills are against the express wishes of a majority of Australian citizens and they do not make any economic sense in any regard whatsoever, especially in today’s global financial uncertainty, and that they should be abandoned, immediately.

Yours sincerely

[your name and address]

h/t Allan Cox and Peggy

——————————–

Hi,

I feel strongly that there should be no Carbon Tax for the following 6 reasons.

If any one of these reasons are correct there should be no Carbon Tax, my investigations have lead me to determine that all of these 6 points are correct.

  1. Is the earth warming? (How much, how accurate are predictions?)  Currently NO
  2. Is warming dangerous? (3 to 5 Deg C and for who or what) Not Dangerous
  3. Is CO2 is the cause of warming (how and by how much)? Only a small part of warming.
  4. Is mankind causing CO2 levels to increase (by how much where’s the evidence)? Only a small part around 3%
  5. Can we fix it? (Change CO2 levels and by how much?) Australia will have no effect and CO2 production by most of the word will increase
  6. Is it cost effective? (Could the money be better spent on say adaption) Not cost effective.

An independent Royal Commission needs to be held to prosecute the people who are defrauding the Australian people on this matter.

kindest regards
Colin Dixon

——————————-

From: James
Subject: Submission – Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean energy Future
To: jscacefl@aph.gov.au

Please accept my submission to the Committee as follows and attached:

1. Letter to Mr Combet with questions

 

The Prime Minister promised the Australian people that she and her ministers would go around Australia answering the people’s questions on the need to put a price on ‘Carbon’. The Prime Minister herself promised to wear out her shoe leather making sure her message for a carbon price got to every Australian. To help the Government’s message the published a ‘Towards a Clean Energy Future’ brochure which was to explain ‘What a price on carbon means to you’. This was sent to all households in Australia and we were invited to seek answers to any questions we might have.

On 12th August 2011, I forwarded the attached letter (See ‘Clean Energy Future.doc attached), by email to the Minister for Climate Change, Mr Greg Combet with a total of 61 questions (main questions and sub questions), on the proposed legislation and the justification for the legislation. I also took the opportunity to forward the letter to as many members of Parliament as I could find email addresses for in the hope my questions would be taken seriously and addressed.

To date I have not received any answers to the questions raised.

2. Follow-up Email to Mr Combet requesting response and additional questions

 

On 27th August 2011, I forwarded a follow up email (see attached ‘Follow up Letter to Mr Combet.doc), requesting a response to my letter and questions which were forwarded to him on 12th August, and adding further questions with regards to how the purchasing of carbon credits would work. Specifically i raised the possibility of penalties, including from the ATO, for businesses who are discovered to have purchased carbon credits which are later found to be fraudulent, (through no fault of the business), but thus leaving that business in breach of it’s emission obligations. Again I copied this to as many members of parliament as I could find email addresses including Greens members, the Government and coalition and independents.

To date I have not received any answers from Mr Combet or his department to any of the questions I have raised.

3. Scientists Continue to release research which does not support the IPCC climate projections

 

The IPCC climate scenario models are based on a number of assumptions regarding specific climate variables. Each of the models is tweaked by adjusting the assumptions regarding aerosols to have the model output agree to past empirical data as closely as they can. The IPCC has acknowledged that Climate Science has limited understanding of many factors which may effect our climate in the short and long term. This includes areas such as cosmic and solar activity, cloud formation, deep ocean currents, the flow of magma within the earth, changing magnetic fields, volcanic activity, (particularly sub-sea where it is estimated there are millions of volcanoes, tubes and vents which are unknown and unmonitored), the level of climate sensitivity to these and other variables including CO2 and other greenhouse gases and the extent of positive and negative feedback mechanisms. These unknowns and uncertainties make the IPCC models on which our Government is basing the need to take action on climate change virtually meaningless.

I do not dispute that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will, all things being equal, warm the atmosphere by a diminishing (non linear, and non exponential) amount. Science is yet to be able to accurately calculate the level of warming over the past 100 years which can be classified as natural versus anthropogenic. Fortunately the science and our knowledge is increasing. We have seen in recent years some scientific research which has refuted some of the tenets of the IPCC’s AR4 with regards to climate sensitivity to CO2, the earth’s energy budget and the ability to radiate heat into space, the impact of clouds and the possible implication of cosmic rays, the greater correlation between the Sun’s solar activity and the earth’s climate than CO2 and climate. We also know that some of the increase in agricultural productivity around the world has been brought about because of greater atmospheric CO2.

4. No Global Action

It appears to be an uncontentious statement that Australia’s planned action on green house gas emissions will have a negligible impact on global temperatures. The impact is so small as to be unlikely to be able to be measured. Treasury projections which have been supplied assume global action on emissions equal to Australia’s planned action by 2016. Despite this wild assumption, Treasury predict that that the proposed action in the Clean Energy Bills will lead to a perpetual reduction in our GDP. That is, a reduction in Australia’s wealth which will never be recovered. This is with an assumption that the rest of the world take similar action. However we know that the USA, Canada, and Japan have already stated that they will not be renewing their emission reduction obligations when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The world’s greatest emitter of green house gasses including CO2 will not commit to emission reductions in fact while China does plan to become more energy efficient by replacing old technology power generation plants, they plan to dramatically increase power generation and manufacturing. So while their ‘carbon intensity’ may decline a little, Chinas green house gas emissions by their own admission are set to sky-rocket. It is a similar storey the the world’s next largest developing country India. Other major developing countries such as Indonesia, and the populous countries of Africa and South America, are also not planning green house gas emissions beyond selling carbon credits to the rest of the world.

5. Australia will Never achieve a comparative advantage in renewable energy technology

 

Australia may well have an abundance of solar rays, wave and tidal motion, geothermal opportunities and maybe even wind energy, but that does not mean we will be in a good position to capitalise on this. Currently virtually all of the wind and solar energy equipment in use in Australia is manufactured overseas and imported into Australia. It is unlikely that under the planned Government Carbon Tax and ETS regime, Australian industry will ever be in a position to establish the carbon intensive industries required to manufacture the renewable energy technology. Countries such as China, India, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, and other developing and emerging economies will not have the emission restrictions Australia will have, they will have access to cheaper labour and greater economies of scale than Australia will ever have. There is no way Australia will ever achieve a position of comparative advantage against our nearest competitors in the area of renewable energy. Moving away from the use of coal, oil and gas, to renewable energy will put what industry we have left in Australia at an even greater disadvantage. This will no doubt lead to further industry closures and greater unemployment and a reduced GDP.

6. Sending Money Overseas will disadvantage all Australians and provide no guarantee of emission reductions.

 

The Governments plan is to allow a great percentage of emission credits to be purchased by Australian industry from overseas. Without committing to the creation of a massive and expensive emission auditing bureaucracy which would require the full co-operation of provider countries there is no way the Australian Government can guarantee that carbon credits purchased overseas are legitimate. They have no way of providing ongoing monitoring of forests, carbon emission reduction activities or controlling changes in legislation or the issuing of emission permits overseas. In the past oil and gas companies have been granted carbon credits for fixing leaks in their pipelines. In other cases carbon credits have been issued to companies who have closed industry in an EU company, only to open worse emitting factories in non EU countries. Is this what Australian businesses should be paying for in order to buy the right to continue operating in Australia?

7. Money should be spent on achieving recurring benefits which do not rely on CO2 being the problem

 

As mentioned at point 3. there is enough reason to question taking dramatic action to reduce green house gas emissions and specifically CO2. As mentioned at point 4. because there is no global action to reduce CO2 emissions, Australia’s action is pointless. Therefore if the government insists on pursuing a reduction in CO2 emissions because of it’s belief in the IPCC projections and a desire to take a leadership role in the world, then at the very least, funds raised from a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme should be utilised for the long term recurring benefit of the Australian community without relying on any supposed benefits from CO2 emission reductions. Money raised should not be used to bribe the community as is proposed by giving back to anyone other than the most needy on fixed government incomes. We should not on the one hand be sending billions of dollars overseas to purchase carbon credits while at the same time providing billions of dollars in subsidies to support ‘trade exposed’ industries. There is no reason the Government couldn’t issue carbon credits to raise the funds to subsidise trade exposed industries. By maintaining the industry competitiveness, you stop the industry closing down and production being shifted overseas to countries where there is less stringent environmental controls than in Australia. That itself is an emission reduction strategy.

Funds from the tax should be applied to improving public transport infrastructure around Australia so that every person living within a reasonable distance of a major city has the ability to utilise public transport and to live without owning a car as is the case in many places in the world. This would have an ongoing economic and environmental benefit for Australia.

Funds raised should be put towards setting aside more forests and marine parks by providing transitional finance for affected workers including forestry, fishing, and support industry and services to relocate, re-train or retire.

Funds should be applied to helping establish intensive food production facilities such as aquaculture and hydroponics which will have a much lower impact on the environment.

Funds should be applied to the establishment of government owned renewable power generation facilities. Privatisation of power generation hasn’t worked in Australia because private companies are tied to the short term profit cycles and cannot spend capital which wont achieve a return for many years.

8. The worst time to introduce a drag on the economy.

 

Government Debt is at a post war record high in Australia and only the wildest of economic optimists believe the Government will spend less than it’s income by 2013. Even if that goal is achieved, by then, and at that projected rate, it will still take about 30 years to repay the debt, not to mention to get to a surplus position which the Rudd Government inherited. Australia currently has the highest interest rates of any OECD country. This is stifling small businesses. Our near record high exchange rate is making our export industries less competitive. We have a reported unemployment rate of nearly 5%. That is, 1 in 20 people who are willing and able to work and are actively seeking employment is not employed. However, because of our relatively generous welfare system our real unemployment rate is much higher. There are people with minor disabilities, or older workers who receive a disability pension. There are single parents on benefits. Many of these people would choose to work part-time, or in a low paying, less taxing position if such positions were available in a stronger economy. Currently these people are part of the ‘hidden’ unemployment. Just because Australia is not near the 100% GDP debt position or 10% some other countries are, it is not a time to become complacent. Debt defaults in the EU, a downturn in Chinese growth, further recession in the USA are all current factors which could pull our economy down even further. It is not the time to be adding a massive tax and handcuffing our industries in Australia.

Summary
I do not support the legislation to introduce a ‘Carbon’ tax and later an emissions trading scheme and the associated legislation the Government is currently proposing under the title the ‘Clean Energy Future’ Bills. As evidenced by my own questions to the Government which have gone ignored and unanswered, the Government clearly does not have sufficient confidence in the need for the legislation to answer questions about it despite the Prime Minister’s ardent promise. There are far too many questions yet to be answered about the variables which affect our climate and our climate’s sensitivity to green house gases and CO2 in particular. The uncertainty is buried within the detail of the IPCC AR4 while the summary for policy makers pretends a level of certainty which is not reflected in the science. The importance of many climate variables is yet to be determined. There is no certainty that reducing CO2 emissions will benefit our climate and no guarantee that it will not be detrimental.

Treasury projections used to support the Governments proposed Clean Energy Future Bills predicts a detrimental impact on Australia’s economic growth, and actually demonstrates the Government’s compensation package would not be sufficient to cover the added burden of a carbon price of $131 per ton in 2010 dollars. But even more damning than this is the reliance the Treasury projections make on the rest of the world taking similar action to ‘put a price on carbon’ by 2016 when all the evidence is that the majority of carbon emitters in the world, (somewhere close top 85%) will not make such a commitment. If the Government is insistent on action, then it should only be taken in concert with the rest of the world as all the experts acknowledge Australia’s action alone will have a negligible impact on climate.

Despite the Governments objective to support renewable power generation and low emission technology in Australia and to create hundreds of thousands of ‘clean energy’ jobs, the fact is Australia will never achieve a comparative advantage in the manufacture of renewable energy technology and will be forced to import equipment from overseas while losing manufacturing jobs to countries which will not have the same emission constraints. If Australia is to have a carbon tax then funds raised from the tax should be spent in Australia not sent overseas, and should be used to build long term infrastructure and on environmental projects with a long term benefit to the Australian people rather than being used to ‘bribe’ Australian voters, pay off industry and try to pick winners among private enterprise.

There are many technical reasons why we should not pass the proposed legislation, and many reasons to amend the legislation if we believed a form of this legislation would be beneficial, but even if you ignored those issues, the current economic environment is possibly the worst time we could consider adding a further burden to our economy. For this reason alone at the very least the Government should consider delaying the legislation until the threat of a global financial meltdown and recession has passed no earlier than 2016.

Thank you for your consideration

 

James

Initial email with detailed questions about the Government booklet on the Carbon Tax. [PDF]

Follow up letter. [PDF]


——————————-

Send your submissions to:

Written submissions must be received by next Thursday, 22 September. They can be emailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au or posted to the select committee care of Parliament House, Canberra.

Please email your representatives!

Email list for the Australian Parliamentary Representatives

See the links to the legislation here.

——————————

UPDATE: You can see the official list of submissions [for the draft legislation] at the DCC site. Post was edited shortly after posting to correct a suggestion that submission might be closed.  The DCC site says that, but the DCC submissions are from an earlier version which did indeed close on Aug 22. The current submissions are still being taken by the Joint Committee until Thursday 22nd (see this page for details).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treason, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3w54sa9

151 comments to The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treason

  • #

    Thank you, thank you, Joanne Nova, for having the courage to post this information.

    We live in dangerous times, because Climategate exposed decades of deceit dating back to the meetings of world leaders where secret agreements were made to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kissinger_Mao.jpg

    See “Political Roadblocks to Progress in Science” (July 22, 2011)

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.doc

    “Video Summary of 50-Year Research Career” (14 Sept 2011)

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.doc

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    There is a democratic principle of long (hundreds of years) standing that every new government should have the free ability to repeal legislation passed by previous governments.

    But what do ultra-Leftists such as Comrade Gillard care for long-standing democratic principles? Less than nothing — they despise them.

    00

  • #
    Nick

    I think that this article in Quadrant sums it up nicely – ‘BETRAYAL!’ – http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/09/carbon-tax-betrayal

    00

  • #

    Please consider adding your name (and relevant details) to the JSC submission at my blog. Given the debacle and resultant political embarrassment the Government has endured arising from having their Malaysia “Solution” smacked down in the High Court, I believe it is worth our giving them food for thought as to the possibility of having the Constitutionality of their so-called “Clean Energy” legislation likewise challenged in the High Court.

    Explanation here, submission here.

    00

  • #

    P.S. I should add that I have been informed by several sources boasting significant legal expertise that my analysis of the (un)constitutionality of the legislation is not only likely correct, but further that there are additional areas of the Constitution other than s.51 and s.55 under which the legislation might also be challenged, that I have not canvassed.

    00

  • #
    catamon

    So, the executive arm of a duly elected Government proposing legislation, spending months in negotiations with properly elected members of Parliament, then introducing and debating that legislation, is some how Treason??

    Both major parties went to the election in 2010 promising action on carbon dioxide emissions. Most of the members in the current parliament were elected on that basis. If the Coalition had been elected in their own right we would have their Direct Action program (bit of a cringeworthy misnomer there), and if the ALP had been elected in their own right we would have had a talkfest, followed by an ETS of some sort.

    Instead, the powers of the executive arm of government have been moderated by the election result that the Australian people chose. The course of action has been decided by negotiations that were open to all interests represented in the parliament. The Coalition had a dummy spit and refused to participate. They have the right to a dummy spit of course.

    If enough people don’t like this, then they are free to let that determine their vote at the next election. Pretty much what people did with WorkChoices in 2007, and remember, WorkChoices was rammed through after no negotiations in 1 month.

    Linking the compensation parts of the package to things like tax free thresholds, is simply an efficient way to do it. Making the Carbon Permits property is something that goes to the heart of one of the big problems that has been facing business the Australian economy over he last couple of years with regards to Climate Change policy, which is investment certainty.

    Yup, it makes it functionally more difficult for an incoming Coalition govt to repeal if they were to win the 2013 election, but it does help preserve one of the Australian economies most attractive features. Stability.

    Like this legislation and its aims or not, calling what is happening “Treason” is pretty shallow and partisan analysis. Funny that there is this much hyperventilating going on about politics at a time when we pretty much have one of the most democratically representative parliaments ever, in place.

    00

  • #

    Catamon, an admirable effort to paper over the lies and deceit. Though calling this a “representative” government is what is really “a shallow and partisan analysis”. 1. If Gillard had said “There will be a carbon tax” we might have radically different representation. 2. If Windsor had said “I’m voting Labor” he would not have won, and Gillard would be out. 3. Repeat “point 2″ for Oakeshott.

    Nice try to spin things as if Australia “chose” this. Three deceits were necessary for her to win by a tiny slither of 400 votes across the whole nation.

    If you are so sure that this is what the people of Australia want, you’d be keen to have an election now, and Gillard and co could rule with a proper majority. Right? Seems though like you are doing everything you can to not have an election.

    I’ll take your bluff and raise it. If this is a representative democracy, let’s kill the debate, and give the government a mandate to do what the people want by having… an election. Six weeks from now, this disabling situation would be over.

    At the very least, Julia could run a plebiscite on the Carbon Tax and settle it eh?

    “Treason” is how some Australian citizens feel right now. That’s the word they are using. Gillard could solve this by postponing it all to start after the next election with property rights becoming effective as soon as the votes are counted.

    00

  • #

    This is what you get when you elect corrupt, lying, psychopaths to be your government.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    #4@Catamon

    This nation was convinced by climate alarmists well before the last election that drought was going to be a continuous state in Australia, that the Murray Darling system might stop running and that floods around Sale in Vic were a thing of the past and capital cities would run out of water all because of anthropogenic global warming.

    Significant Federal and State Government decisions were made because of this. Flood controlling dams were not built, the Wivenhoe Dam held near capacity water at the start of the wet season, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent buying back water rights which weren’t even being used and desalination plants were built which may never be needed. The fact is, predictions on which Government decisions were made, were wrong and circumstances do change.

    All of those severely damaging measures were taken without the then Governments locking in ‘poison pills’ into legislation to stop future governments from making alterations should circumstances change in the future. How much more disastrous would those errors of the recent past have been if current Governments were locked into all the decisions of the past which were made on predictions which have turned out to be well off the mark? How much more damaging will this proposed legislation be which locks us in to massive economic costs and industrial restructuring simply because the current Government cannot envisage the possibility that circumstances may change in the future or that they could be wrong?

    How arrogant is this current Government to punish the Australian people should a future parliament elected by the people choose to make changes to the decisions made by them today? How can you possibly endorse their attempt to Govern well after they have been thrown out of office?

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Isn’t it interesting that your current “government” pretends to respect the property rights of people who are going to buy the right to do something they are not, by the self same law, to do? All the while they ignore the property rights of everyone else who actually produce things that other people want, need, and are willing to pay for. Then they tax into near oblivion anything those productive people might actually make over what it costs to produce those life giving and life sustaining values.

    The fact is they are not at all concerned about individual rights – property or otherwise. They are after the enslavement of all to all with them as the unaccountable masters. Masters who get to decide who to sacrifice to whom, how much they are to sacrifice, how fast they are to be sacrificed, and the reason they are to be sacrificed. The sacrificial victims are to have no choice in the matter. The masters will decide. It is to be sacrifice 24/7, wall to wall, and top to bottom.

    Finally, when the whole show collapses, as it must, they will plead innocence because they meant well and didn’t intend for the collapse to happen. They would be lying! They intended to destroy the good from the get go BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD.

    00

  • #
    Ed P

    Good luck fighting the mad Gillard. In the UK we have our own idiots in charge – mainly Huhne, the Minister for “increasing the price of energy and despoiling the countryside with bird slicers”. The man’s certifiably insane and still spouting utter nonsense about climate and CO2 in the face of all the evidence now available. Our household energy bills are approx GBP300 p.a. higher due to subsidising the inefficient slicers, none of which has ever run at their specified output, even with more frequent (& expensive) maintenance intervals than expected.
    But, as the Euro collapses (very soon), I’ll be tilting at them!

    00

  • #
    blvr

    The comments above are unbelievable. What is wrong with everyone?

    Taking action on greenhouse gas emissions is an appropriate response to the risk of catastrophic climate change. A carbon tax is the least cost approach to reducing emissions. Why are people so opposed to a carbon tax? The economic impact will be minimal – those that say the economy will be destroyed remind me of Chicken Little. It’s as if they are trying to find something to worry about. I promise you will not even notice the carbon tax amongst the day to day price fluctuations of everything you buy.

    The economic costs are not “massive”, they are relatively small in comparison to GDP.
    Industrial restructuring will be slow and well compensated.

    @Joanne I’ll raise you again – how about we wait until 1 year after the carbon tax has been implemented and measure the change in attitude across the population towards the carbon tax? I’ll wager that once people have had an opportunity to see the tax in action – and see how minor the impact has been – support will have increased substantially, and that growth in support will continue. In fact, I reckon most people will pretty quickly put it into the “don’t care/don’t know” basket, because it will be imperceptible to them.

    If support has dropped below today’s levels, then the carbon tax goes, otherwise it stays.

    I can’t work out on what basis people have decided to start freaking out about the tax. None of the modelling that I’ve seen indicates a major hit to GDP, even the worst of it seems pretty tame, particularly when you consider that economics is always pessimistic about these things. So what is the source of all the fear? I can’t help thinking that it must be the vested interests that are driving this show.

    [No, we won't notice the day to day fluctuations, because the effects of the tax will be un-transparent and hidden from view. People won't be "sacked" with a note to say it was due to the carbon tax. It's estimated to cost $1600 per year for a family of four (and increasing each year). If it's all so obvious, run an election campaign, convince the public that treasury modeling says it's ok to slap a sacrificial extra price on energy in Australia compared to all our competitors. Convince the public that it will help the environment and we'll all vote for a carbon tax OK? If it's so banal, it will be easy eh? -- JN]

    00

  • #

    Thank you, Professor Henry Ergas, for reminding us that Julia Gillard, Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC, and leaders of the scientific community have as much control over nature [1,2] as a flea over the direction of the elephant on which it rides!

    1. “Long-Range Forecast of U.S. Drought Based on Solar Activity” by the late-Dr. Theodor Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm

    2. “Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate,” WIREs Climate Change 1 (Jan/Feb 2010) 111–122 by NRL’s Dr. Judith Lean

    http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    James Doogue is good.

    If you haven’t already done so, I can recommend reading both his letters to the powers-that-be. I can only wish I was 1/10th as articulate.

    Thank you, James

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Sorry Jo , this completely off topic, but I thought everyone would be interested in this Bishop Hill thread on Skeptical Science

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Lionell Griffith:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:42 am
    …”Finally, when the whole show collapses, as it must, they will plead innocence because they meant well and didn’t intend for the collapse to happen. They would be lying! They intended to destroy the good from the get go BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD.”

    The collapse could be triggered so many different ways. It is possible that most of the population will wake up to the AGW scam/failure well before the collapse. Once they have this money and control they will not want to let go of it.
    Consider this possibility:
    Much of the Atmospheric CO2 is eaten up by planckton as a natural part of the carbon cycle (more than 10 percent) but planckton only lives for a few days. Planckton can if given enough nutrients bloom to double its population in just one day. A large meteorite shower hit or a Ve7 ashy volcanic eruption could therefore make the planckton CO2 up take grow to 1024 times the normal level in just 10 days.
    1 day 2x, 2 days 4x, 3 days 8 x, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024.

    So in eleven days from now it could be obvious to the whole world that there is no more warming problem and no more possibility of there being too much CO2 for a very very long time. However they may still try to continue with the power and money grab while the Eugenics crowd inspired by Svante Arrhenius rejoice over the results of a CO2 shortage.
    Lance Pidgeon

    00

  • #
    scott

    To lie shows a weak minded person

    to lie and make money is fraud

    to lie, make money and harm a nation is treason !!

    its a lie that is taking money from people and harming a nation.

    looks like, smells like.. treason !!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Jo thank you for this timely post and Barnaby is Right thanks for your work
    I’ve added my name to the JSC submission on your blog

    00

  • #

    I fear the only practical way to put a stop to this is by the legal route; its the only one that can ‘bind’ the actions of the government in a way they cannot circumvent. Plus it has the rather powerful advantage they will have no awareness of specifically what ‘trips the cart’ until the challenge is made. At this stage of proceedings they can still adjust the legislation to escape any traps that come to light, in effect the legislation needs to be ‘weak’ and pass into law and then be shown to be either illegal, contradictory or impractical to enact.

    It would be expensive, but this could be buried under so much legal inquiry and clarification of meaning the acts could well collapse in on themselves. Remember this is a rats nests of interconnected legislation that skates around the margins of what is legal and what is not – you only need one part of it to fall into the hole and the whole lot goes down the pan…

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    I know this isn’t legally enforceable, but I commit to standing by it:

    If this carbon tax that will send tens of billions of our money overseas per year to pay for offsets is passed against the will of the people by a minority government and in such a way to deliberately make it expensive to repeal, then I declare that I will never vote Labor again.

    00

  • #

    Are you wondering if someone is working you over, or about to work you over?

    There is an answer. If someone is offering to bring you CERTAINTY, you are a shot duck.

    CERTAINTY is the ultimate spin word, and, yes, I know that’s a big call, considering the volume and quality of competition in the present era. It’s a bit like becoming Miss Venezuela.

    CERTAINTY has crushed its opposition. Sorry, I meant to say that CERTAINTY has brought certainty to its opposition.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    We have an action that we can take, but it would only be effective in those electorates that have sitting Labour or Independant members. This is from “Pompous Git” who said the following on the WUWT thread about this legislation;

    “First, the parliament is not the government; the Queen of Australia is our government. Our representatives in parliament are there to express the WILL of the electors. Let’s say a majority of electors tell their representative that it is their WILL that they vote against this current bill. If said representative votes in favour, then the electors are entitled to demand of the Governor General (the Queen’s representative) that she remove the representative from the parliament and holds a bye election. Should the GG refuse, then the Queen is bound by the Australian Constitution to do the reoval of the recalcitrant representative.

    If you write to a representative and tell him you want such-and-such, you will mostly be ignored. If you express your WILL that such-and-such be done, then you will nearly always be paid attention. Because the Rep knows that you have some understanding of our constitution and your rights as an elector.”

    Sounds like a plan to me.

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    It would seem that the Precautionary Principle (PP) is a one-way street when Climate Politics is involved.
    PP+ = We MAY undergo Catastrophic Climate Change so we MUST take action now!
    PP- = We MAY undergo Catastrophic Economic Decline if we enact this legislation but we’ve stitched you up good and proper should you dare attempt to recant our Good Works.

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Catamon@4: I know you’re just loving your new temporary status as a member of the Australian ruling class. That is why you wave away all concerns about the anti-democratic treachery that was used to get you into your new throne. Most Australians are peace-loving people, so they are not going to trash buildings and torch police cars the way your zombie thugs and wreckers will when their Cuban fantasyland is taken away from them after we are allowed to vote again. We trust our economy, which has provided you with the wealth you enjoy but are are too stupid to understand the origin of, will survive your anti-civilisationist onslaught.

    00

  • #
    handjive

    In relation to James Doogues excellent & articulate submission, point 4 – No Global Action:

    Barack Obama’s chief climate change negotiator, Todd Stern, warned that the future of the Kyoto Protocol could be a major stumbling block in Durban.

    India’s former special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, said a global emissions trading scheme was still “very far away” and warned not to assume that domestic efforts to tackle climate change were building towards a global response.

    (R)ecommendations to the New Zealand government that it slow the increase in its carbon price under its emissions trading scheme and soften the impact on agriculture when it is included in the scheme from 2015 because of international uncertainty on action on climate change.

    SID MAHER AND PAUL MALEY From: The Australian September 21, 2011

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Carl Chapman @ 18,

    I think you will find that there is a whole generation of voters who will not vote Labour or Green for the forseeable future. This legislation is political suicide on a scale never before seen in a democratic country. Don’t forget since we have compulsory voting, people have to make a choice. In other democracies, voting is optional and therefore people could not vote at all as a protest which would reduce the electoral impact. Look at the result in the recent NSW state election and in that case the previous NSW Labour government was merely incompetent. This Federal Labour government is actively making people very angry.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    catamon @6

    Yup, it makes it functionally more difficult for an incoming Coalition govt to repeal if they were to win the 2013 election, but it does help preserve one of the Australian economies most attractive features. Stability.

    That’s a bit like the surgeon saying that severing the patients spinal cord at least gave the patient some certainty- paraplegia.

    Work Choices legislation has absolutely no bearing on this act of economic vandalism (and is a spurious argument if there ever was one), as it had no riders on it offering compensation to employers if the legislation was ever repealed. If it did, Labor would have howled at the moon and rightly so.

    The long held tenets of democracy are founded on the idea that people are free to repeal any legislation via electing the opposition parties at the next election if they deem such legislation as poorly thought out, erroneous, unfair in some way to segments of society, or if circumstances change. That is what Labor did at 2007 election.

    Imagine if such repealing of Work Choices legislation had have cost billions in compensation to employers by the tax payer, the population would have attacked the Coalition mercilessly and they would have spent years in the political wilderness. So what makes this piece of legislation so different, Cat?

    And in to the bargain, the legislation entrenches sending money offshore in an unregulated fashion in perpetuity, at least Work Choices aims were to improve the efficiency of the Australian economy, even if you did feel it went too far in its scope and action. You are defending the indefensible, & thereby proving that you really don’t believe in democracy, in that the people should not (in your mind) have the right to repeal legislation purely because it is Labor’s legislation. Nice logic!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I’ve been searching on the net to see how emissions permits are treated in other countries (whether as property or something else – acquisition of property giving rise under the Aust Constitution to just compensation and thus potentially millions of dollars in compensation by a future Govt) and came across this Research Paper No. 42 March 2007 by the Australia Institute at http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/docs/WP98.pdf
    If you search that paper for the word ‘property’ you will find on page 5

    The proposed hybrid scheme effectively privatises rights to the atmosphere
    and leaves taxpayers rather than polluters to foot the bill for the deep
    emissions cuts that ultimately will be required
    In order to guarantee certainty to investors, the hybrid system proposes to allocate a large
    quantity of emission permits in perpetuity, constituted as property rights. Allocation of an
    amount equal to 1990 emissions (as suggested by the authors) would be a gross overallocation
    far worse in its environmental and fiscal consequences than the over-allocation
    of water licences by state governments.
    It is generally accepted that emissions in Australia will need to be cut by at least 60% by
    2050 and more likely 90% in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. If we are to
    meet these goals then it would be necessary for the government to buy back and retire most
    of the perpetual permits, probably at huge cost, even though these permits initially would
    have been allocated free of charge or at a very low price. As in the case of the overallocation
    of water permits, forcing the tax-payer to pay for past mistakes is inequitable and
    bad policy, especially when it can be foreseen.
    The property rights approach is at odds with best practice elsewhere in the world, including
    the EU ETS, the US acid rain program, and the RGGI scheme being developed by ten
    north-eastern US states. In all these cases, permits constitute a license, not a property right.
    The RGGI Model Rule, for example, states:
    6
    No provision of this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the regulatory
    agency to terminate or limit such authorization to emit. This limited authorization
    does not constitute a property right.

    I suspect Abbott has legal advice
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tony-abbott-vows-to-scrap-carbon-scheme-if-elected-to-government/story-e6frfku0-1226142071793#ixzz1YVoeFghQ
    Abbott’s proposal is

    Labor and the Greens say dismantling it would cost billions of dollars to compensate businesses for emissions permits they’d purchased, because it would deprive them of an asset and breach the constitution.

    But Mr Abbott said today that while the Government had been “very sneaky” in structuring the complicated scheme, he believed there were ways to take it apart.

    “During the fixed-price phase of the carbon tax (from 2012 to 2015) I think we can close it down, and we will close it down without incurring the billions in liabilities that the (government) is talking about,” Mr Abbott told Macquarie Radio.

    “It is typical of this Government that they would try to booby-trap their legislation so that people couldn’t then repeal a bad law.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Handjive @ 23

    Add to your list the Ban-ki Moon on his recent visit to Australia/NZ said he did not think a global agreement was possible in the near future. He said there was a need to push
    “regional initiatives” –whatever they are.
    Durban will go the same way as Copenhagen and Cancun.

    BTW — Anyone else notice that those pushing the Tax agenda are using words like ” the market ” and ” stability” and “certainty” alot more lately. Are they trying to persuade those on the right side of the political divide with some sort new found economic enlightenment ???

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Ross @27

    BTW — Anyone else notice that those pushing the Tax agenda are using words like ” the market ” and ” stability” and “certainty” alot more lately. Are they trying to persuade those on the right side of the political divide with some sort new found economic enlightenment ??

    Words are a weapon….never forget that. The post modern politician says alot of the “right” words but it is meaningless soundbites to fool the undiscriminating and uninformed.

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    The dictionary describes megolomania as the “insanity of self-exaltation; passion for big things.”
    What an apt description of Kevin Rudd and an even more perfect description of Julia Gillard! Australia has suffered under two successive megalomaniacs and I personally think Gillard is increasingly reaching the stage where if properly assessed, she would be mentally certifiable!

    Her actions remind me of those exhibited by the late unlamented Saddam Hussein in 1991 when being forcibly evicted after his invasion of Kuwait and facing certain defeat, out of pure malice and spite he had his forces set fire to all the oil wells as they were retreating.

    In similar vein Gillard, facing certain defeat due to her continued blatant lying, spinning and stubborn and mindless determination to bring in her useless, economicallly disastrous fraudulently based carbon-dioxide tax against the wishes of the majority, seems determined to inflict as much largely irreparable damage as she can on Australians and the Australian economy.

    Treason is not too strong a word to describe her actions and those of any of her “government” (I use the word loosely) who are complicit in bringing in such a tax.

    All power to any and all who are pursuing any legal means whatever to stop this particular demented megalomaniac from further implementing any more of her destructive policies!

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The simple answer is that NO.

    The carbon tax is NOT treason.

    It’s ignorant. It’s foul. It’s delusional… It’s represents the declining mental health of our polity that they can sit in Canberra debating how many carbon pollution particles can dance on the head of a pin for $25 a ton of imaginary air bought from Nigerian princes….Cultural senility?

    But it is not treason.

    I think it would behoove our arguments NOT to descend into hyper-bolla (As PM Gillard calls it) Why not? Because the whole carbon tax non-debate is already so bloody insanely mad it needs no hyperbole to make the point that our whole country is suffering some kind of group cognitive disorder. Stick to the facts.

    treason |ˈtrēzən|
    noun (also high treason)
    the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason.
    • the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith.
    • ( petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
    DERIVATIVES
    treasonous |ˈtrēzənəs| adjective
    ORIGIN Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French treisoun, from Latin traditio(n-) ‘handing over,’ from the verb tradere.
    USAGE Formerly, there were two types of crime to which the term treason was applied: petty treason (the crime of murdering one’s master) and high treason (the crime of betraying one’s country). As a classification of offense, the crime of petty treason was abolished in 1828. In modern use, the term high treason is now often simply called treason.

    Gillard and the Greens (in zeitgeist with our ABC media elites) are not consciously aware that their actions are a betrayal of their country. They think they are making heroic personal sacrifices to SAVE our nation!

    Yes, they are that delusional.

    It’s what happens when a whole ruling elite class buy into a millenarian apocalyptic myth. If the whole planet is going to die and with it our civilisation, then, of course, rather undemocratic and authoritarian means are justified. Gillard and the Greens imagine themselves as Churchillian pillars of resolve engaged in WWIII (only this time the Jews must go.)

    To the Gillard/Brown coalition of fools it’s win-win. They’ll save the planet and if the planet actually didn’t really need saving in the first place we’ll still end up in a collectivist utopian society with all power concentrated in the wise hands of a tiny technocratic elite whose moral authority trumps the ignorance of hoi polloi.

    No doubt by this point in the polls, Gillard, the Independent clowns and Brown imagine democracy and a free press are highly over-rated!

    So get a grip people! We are the ones who must remain the voice of reason and moderation against the elite mob who would shut down free speech and even our democracy in order to “Save the Planet.”

    And remember the glass is half full. Don’t poison the chalice with rhetoric we might regret later… There will be elections soon enough and the actions of this government, we can hope, will be enough to see their kind of madness turned out to the wilderness for at least a generation to come. That’s the silver-lining to this whole national catastrophe.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Will is impressed that Joe Romm like this mad plan, where offsets go “poof” when u hit the cancellation button:

    21 Sept: Business Green: Will Nichols: Carbon Retirement – the future of offsetting?
    Carbon trading has not had the greatest press of late, considering the cyber crime hitting the European spot markets earlier this year, ongoing concerns over the efficacy of industrial gas offsets, and the wave of protest sparked by Australia’s proposed cap-and-trade scheme…
    But Carbon Retirement, a UK start up, is looking to change perceptions and put pressure on countries to move towards cleaner technology through a new approach to carbon offsetting that involves buying up credits in order to reduce the volume of carbon credits in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)…
    “We buy the credit, it gets transferred to our account at the Environment Agency (EA) and then there’s literally a cancellation button on our account we press and poof, the credit goes up in a little puff of smoke,” Jane Burston, co-founder and chief executive of Carbon Retirement, tells BusinessGreen…
    Since the company was established three years ago, it has won some high profile fans, not least Joseph Romm, Bill Clinton’s former environmental adviser…
    However, a new partnership with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) may take the company in a new direction.
    NYSE’s HR director attended one of Burston’s lectures and decided to offer employees the chance to offset a year of their lives through Carbon Retirement as part of the exchange’s benefits package…
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/interview/2110454/carbon-retirement-future-offsetting

    00

  • #
    Neville

    There is a new PR paper that supports the conclusion of Lindzen and Spencer. The conclusion is that clouds can have 17 times the effect of a doubling of co2.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/#more-47761

    00

  • #
    Nevill;e

    Just to add to the above. Pielke Snr points out that for the deep oceans to be warming that transfer of extra heat should have been measured by the ARGO buoys, but it has not.

    Then we read that this isn’t measured at all but is part of another modeling exercise.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/#more-47793

    CO2 warming is starting to look a little sick, just in time for our idiot govt to introduce the world’s biggest co2 tax.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Jo I’ve been trying to post further on that vexed question of just entitlement but think I’ve got stuck in your spam filter

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    some comfort is provided by this comment by Ken Parish at Catallaxy files Carbon Permits and Property Rights:
    The proposed 2012 fixed price scheme does not involve anyone buying permits at all. That phase would only begin after 2015. In the meantime Abbott has made it perfectly clear that he will roll back the scheme if elected and (at least inferentially) that he wouldn’t be paying compensation unless legally obliged to do so. I don’t have any problem at all with that. In my view Abbott is under no ethical obligation to do any more than he has already done. If the Coalition wins the next election (which looks odds-on), it would be legally and morally entitled to repeal the carbon legislation without delay.

    00

  • #
    pat

    the Unions will have a lot to answer for, here and elsewhere, if members’ Super gets gobbled up by sham Green entrepreneurs:

    20 Sept: Reuters: Michelle Nicholls: Clinton trumpets green investments to create jobs
    More than 1,200 people, including more than 50 heads of state such as U.S. President Barack Obama, business leaders, humanitarians and celebrities were due to attend the seventh annual Clinton Global Initiative that began on Tuesday.
    With the United States possibly on the brink of another recession and the unemployment rate at more than 9 percent, Clinton trumpeted a pledge by the AFL-CIO labor federation and the American Federation of Teachers to reinvest $10 billion over the next five years in energy-efficient infrastructure…
    The unions have worked with state treasurers and pension funds associated with labor to make the green investments. For example, two of the largest U.S. public pension funds, California’s CalPERS and CalSTERS, have allocated over $1.1 billion to the effort.
    Aside from clean-energy projects such as wind and solar power, Clinton said pension funds and banks should invest in giving green make-overs to buildings, from hospitals and schools to government buildings. The cost of retrofitting would be paid back by the monthly savings in energy costs, he said…
    John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, which is helping implement the commitment by the labor and teachers’ unions, said that for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure, about 18,000 jobs were created…
    Clinton said if American banks started investing some $2 trillion in cash they were sitting on, “we would have a million jobs in no time.”
    “This is not rocket science,” said Clinton, who began his philanthropic initiative out of his frustration while president between 1993 and 2001 at attending conferences that were more talk than action…
    Slovenian President Danilo Turk said lessons could be learned from Germany’s investments.
    “We have to follow Germany’s example with an understanding that the results will not come overnight, but that we have to find the appropriate public funds for investment in transformative technologies now,” Turk said…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-usa-philanthropy-clinton-idUSTRE78J50L20110920

    20 Sept: Reuters: House Republicans step up probe into energy loans
    Days before Department of Energy deadlines to finalize $8.9 billion in loans for 14 pending renewable energy projects, Congressional investigators asked for detailed financial information on the deals and the government’s due diligence.
    “We are concerned that another rush to meet stimulus deadlines will result in DOE closing these deals before they are ready,” said Fred Upton, Cliff Stearns and Ed Whitfield of the House Energy and Commerce committee, in a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday.
    The lawmakers have been probing whether politics influenced government loans to Solyndra. They had expected company executives to answer questions at a hearing on Friday.
    But lawyers for Solyndra executives said their clients would not answer lawmakers’ questions, invoking their rights to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…
    Solyndra Chief Executive Brian Harrison and Chief Financial Officer W.G. Stover had agreed to testify to Congress about the loans, but on Tuesday, their lawyers said they would not answer questions, according to letters obtained by Reuters.
    The company said it was cooperating with the Justice Department and did not break any rules. In a statement, it blamed low prices and a glut of solar panels for its woes, and said a failure of the DOE to agree to a new financing arrangement led to its bankruptcy.
    “As late as August, the company believed that existing investors and the DOE would come to a financing arrangement that would have secured the capital the company needed,” Solyndra said…
    But Republicans have uncovered e-mails showing concerns about the company’s finances dating back before the loans were made. Other e-mails suggested decisions may have been rushed to accommodate the schedules of Obama administration officials who wanted to promote them.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-solyndra-loans-idUSTRE78J5OR20110920

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I recommend the article by John Dawson at Quadrant Online today
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/carbon-pathway-to-disaster
    Last 2 paras:

    ”The market” is not “a mechanism” to be used to command an economy; it is the absence of economic commands. CO2 is not a pollutant; and our emissions are not, as one of our alarmists implies, the equivalent of Hitler’s war. Whatever effect humanities emissions of CO2 may or may not have on the climate, the government’s carbon price package will have no measurable effect on those emissions, let alone the weather. What it will have a profound effect on is our ability build the wealth we may require to deal with climatic and many other hazards. The carbon price package will not drain CO2 and bad weather from the sky, but it will drain productivity and prosperity from the earth; it will jam a faucet into the economy and siphon an accelerating flow of funds – half to be poured down the long drop at the bottom of Bob and Julia’s garden, the other half to be channeled to where they and their political progeny direct it.

    There will be a lot of favored voters to be compensated for a lot of increased costs, favored researchers to be funded for favored climate projects, favored entrepreneurs to be given grants for favored green businesses, favored energy companies to be subsidized for favored green energy supplies, favored green organisations to be aided for favored environmental public relations exercises; and there will be the policing of the revenue stream and the administration of its distribution to be funded. There will be a lot of favors to be dispensed and penalties to be applied by a lot of politicians, academics, scientists, agents, chairmen, consultants and bureaucrats. How could a couple of self justifying social planners in search of a noble cause on the anointed sides of history to attest to their moral superiority and vision resist?

    00

  • #

    I was just wondering!

    Why is the UN not pursuing Australia to fulfill its obligation, Kevin Rudd having ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007.

    1997 – COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

    COP 3 took place in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. After intensive negotiations, it adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which outlined the greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligation for Annex I countries, along with what came to be known as Kyoto mechanisms such as emissions trading, clean development mechanism and joint implementation. Most industrialized countries and some central European economies in transition (all defined as Annex B countries) agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6 to 8% below 1990 levels between the years 2008–2012, defined as the first emissions budget period. The United States would be required to reduce its total emissions an average of 7% below 1990 levels; however Congress did not ratify the treaty after Clinton signed it. The Bush administration explicitly rejected the protocol in 2001.

    Of the 192 Countries originally signed to the the Protocol, there was a list of 40 Countries culled from that as Annex1 Countries, and from that list, culled then to 23 Countries, er, Australia included.

    All but 2 Countries added that all important second signature, ratifying the Protocol, agreeing they would implement those measures called for, those Countries being Australia and the U.S.

    Now , why those two Countries did not add that second signature is because that list of 23 Countries were to pay ALL the costs of the remaining 152 Countries, who need do no more than just report their emissions.

    Note specifically that the Protocol calls for emissions reduction in the amounts of 6 to 8% lower than the 1990 levels.

    Now this Australian legislation seeks to lower emissions to a level 5% less than the 2000 levels.

    I wonder why the UN is not mentioning this and saying, ‘hey, but your MR Rudd signed Australia up to 6 to 8% lower than 1990 levels. How about sticking to your agreement.’

    Note also how the blame is more ‘explicitly’ sheeted home with greater emphasis on Bush than on Clinton. It mentions, almost is passing that Clinton signed (the first signature) but that dirty dastardly Congress failed him so miserably.

    When the Protocol was presented to the U.S. Senate that so sadly failed Clinton (with Al Gore as his VP) so badly, well that Senate voted not to ratify Kyoto by adding that second signature, and wait for it … 95 – 0. Not one vote in favour to ratify. Democrats and Republicans ALL voted not to add that second signature.

    However, stronger language is needed to sheet home the blame to Bush.

    Where does the UN get off in not seeking Australia to abide by Rudd’s (hence Australia’s) signature.

    Be very careful here, some people might seek to sheet this home to Prime Minister Howard who was one of the original first signatories of those 192 Countries.

    The second ratifying signature was infinitely more important and means that your Country agreed to abide by what the Protocol calls for.

    This new legislation is being touted as the saviour of the environment, at 5% lower than 2000 levels.

    What needs to be seen here is that of those 40 Annex 1 already Developed Countries, not one of them has succeeded in lowering their emissions to that 6 to 8% lower than 1990 levels.

    Meanwhile, the UN Subsidiary organisation The World Bank is spending billions in those other 152 Countries alleviating the CO2 emissions, by funding the construction of, and wait for this … Coal fired power plants.

    Now perhaps you gain the inkling of an understanding why Copenhagen and Cancun failed so utterly, because Kyoto had a sunset clause of 2012 to find a replacement for Kyoto.

    Now that those 23 (and the remainder of that original 40 Countries) are coming to the realisation of what Kyoto really means, and they want it changed, and the other 152 don’t want to lose what this existing legally binding document provides for them, hence they don’t want it changed. This is also why Durban will fail so miserably as well.

    Also, it seems that some Countries have seen just how much money there is in any form of ETS, and, rather than sending the money off to the UN to pay ALL the costs of those other 152 Countries, they want to keep it for themselves, hence no mention in any legislation of a binding signed legal document to send vast amounts of money to the UN.

    Read the insert again.

    6 to 8% lower than 1990.

    Not 5% lower than 2000.

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Would Dr. Pielke agree?

    4. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to marine ecosystems in the form of ocean acidification within the next century?

    Regardless of whether we reduce the alkalinity of the oceans (since there may be buffering from the added CO2 through mixing from below) we will be altering ecosystem function both in the oceans and in the atmosphere. Since we do not know the consequences of doing this, the smart thing to do is to work towards reducing the extent we alter the chemisty of the oceans and the atmosphere.

    5. Do you think that we should begin to move towards a low-carbon economy, thereby reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions?

    I am very much in favor of energy sources which minimize the input off gases and aerosols into the atmosphere. Much of my career has been involved with reducing air pollution (both in research and in policy). What we should move towards is an economy with as small a footprint on the natural environment as possible.

    In terms of how to do this with respect to carbon emissions, I completely agree with my son’s perspective as he presents in The Climate Fix – http://theclimatefix.com/

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Tristan @39
    Ocean acidification is a complete nonsense- what are the pH changes in an estuary for example. To justify draconian, anti-human, anti-progressive legislation for economic suicide?- rubbish!
    Carbon emissions (soot) should be reduced, no one argues that particulate pollution should be minimised (except warmists ironically who are claiming its cooling the planet!). Carbon dioxide emissions- storm in a teacup- irrelevant to future viability of civilisation, and reaction to this spurious argument is actually diverting us away from proper energy management. It is a political pawn in a game of internationalist chess to rob first world countries of sovreignty and to promote third world corruption and entrench further poverty among the world’s most unfortunate.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    The word Sustainable is evocative of everything noble and pure in human society, at least for now.

    Then we have to face the reality that there is nothing noble, green or planet saving in the entire Global Warming Hoax.

    A grand manipulation and misdirection of human focus and effort which has already seen serious repercussions and will see retribution rear its ugly head in the near future.

    One hundred years ago many millions of otherwise sane people were led into world wars that were essentially trade wars whose beneficiaries were the rich and powerful.

    Manipulation for benefit does not go out of fashion, however, and we now have the enslavement of large groups of workers to “Save the Planet” and further enrich the rich and powerful.

    There was a song from the sixties, maybe Pete Seeger, with a line “when will they ever learn”.

    The question is still relevant today with greenies and BP Oil marching together to save the planet – or perhaps BPs large investment in Wind Power Generators.

    00

  • #
    Steve E

    The comments here seem to have gone way off track to the original posting. As a non-aussie, I ask, does Australia have anything like impeachment legislation? If the answer is no, do voters, at least, have long enough memories to make sure that the politicians who supported this travesty never get elected again in their lifetimes for any level of government.

    00

  • #
    pat

    the UN can say nothing, because the IPCC has been discredited. of course Clinton would time his money-begging fest to coincide with the UN meetings in NYC this week, wouldn’t he? not content with the shocking results of his Haiti interventions post-earthquake, Clinton wants all the poor countries in the Caribbean to do what even the industrialised world won’t due to cost and inefficiency of renewables!

    20 Sept: AP: Ex-President Clinton: Green movement needs money
    Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that the success of the alternative energy movement is hampered by a lack of financing…
    Clinton said the next countries most likely to be affected by climate change are places that are inland and hot – such as Mali, a landlocked nation in western Africa.
    “A few years ago, after the south Asian tsunami, I spent a lot of time in the Maldives,” Clinton said. “I think it’s quite possible that the Maldives won’t be here in 30 or 40 years.”
    Clinton said Caribbean nations are microcosms of the problems associated with combating climate change. Every Caribbean nation should be energy-independent, he said, by generating solar, wind and geothermal energy…
    “We’ve got to somehow involve the imagination of ordinary people,” Clinton said. “They have to understand that this is not a burden, it’s an opportunity.”…
    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/20/general-us-clinton-global-initiative_8691090.html

    pity the following is only a Blog by James Pethokoukis, Money & Politics columnist for Reuters Breakingviews:

    16 Sept: Reuters Blog: Solyndra, the logical endpoint of Obamanomics
    Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
    Oh, and Wall Street, too. Who was the exclusive financial adviser to Solyndra when it was trying to secure the $535 million loan from Washington? Goldman Sachs. And had the cap-and-trade scheme been enacted, big banks stood ready to reap billions from the trading of carbon emission credits.
    No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance.
    Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
    And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, 2009). As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job…
    Even after getting the loan, Solyndra spent $187,000 on lobbying efforts, according to Bloomberg, including trying to get the White House to push government agencies to install its panels on the rooftops of federal buildings and extend “buy American” rules that favor U.S. companies. Instead of revenue seeking, Solyndra was “rent seeking,” which means trying to make money by manipulating government .
    And when the White House was trying to determine whether to sink another $67 million into Solyndra, its calculus was political not financial (via The Washington Post):
    “The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”…
    The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
    http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/09/16/solyndra-the-logical-endpoint-of-obamanomics/

    first comment:
    This is *REUTERS* publishing this stuff?
    Fantastic piece, but where were you three years ago?

    00

  • #
    pat

    once a liar…

    Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Clinton: Climate deniers make US ‘look like a joke’
    Republican presidential candidates who question climate change and its causes make the United States “look like a joke,” ex-President Bill Clinton told the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting in New York.
    “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial” about global warming, said Clinton, speaking at the initiative’s opening session.
    “I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it? You could really help us here.”…
    The quality of debate in America over climate and its consequences is “really tragic” due to the vocal deniers, Clinton argued.
    “We need the debate in America and every country between people who are a little bit to the right and people who are a little bit to the left about what the best way is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, what is the best (and) most economical way to do it, what will get more done quicker,” he added.
    “So, if you want to save the planet, the best way to rebuke the global warmers is to be able to point to every single solitary community to a specific example where changing the way we produce and consume energy increased, not decreased, employment.”…
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/09/20/clinton-climate-deniers-make-us-look-like-a-joke/

    whatever it takes, Bill…

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    It is a political pawn in a game of internationalist chess to rob first world countries of sovreignty and to promote third world corruption and entrench further poverty among the world’s most unfortunate.

    Manipulation for benefit does not go out of fashion, however, and we now have the enslavement of large groups of workers to “Save the Planet” and further enrich the rich and powerful.

    Shh, they might be listening.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Winston

    You hit the nail on the head in saying that Warmists are not worried by real pollution.

    In our local environment there was a disgusting pollution “event” during Hunter River dredging for the new coal loader.

    At the time the State Labor Government was the developer and there wasn’t a peep from local environmental groups, Greenpiece, GetUp or the UN.

    Absolute Silence.

    00

  • #

    The point that I’m attempting to make with the reference to Kyoto is that it is a legally binding document for Australia, thanks to Rudd’s second signature.

    Is not Australia seeking to get out of a legally binding document by passing legislation to only reduce emissions to a level 5% lower than 2000 levels.

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    I thought you had retired?

    00

  • #
    jamesc

    “…put to the sword”…? you nut jobs should really take a chill pill.

    REPLY: The old cliche was a bit over the top. OK. Snipped.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Pat @ 46

    Bill’s Willy makes her look like a joke.

    She may come to realise that her climate deniers are making the US look intelligent.

    Just because she can’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    The old phrase “imitation is the highest form of flattery” held me back until I realised it’s not necessarily so (could be a good song title);

    so here goes.

    “”Shh, they might be listening.”"

    And, you’re point is ?

    Yes pointless isn’t it.

    00

  • #
  • #
    catamon

    “If the answer is no, do voters, at least, have long enough memories”

    Some would say that voters in Oz have the memories attributed to goldfish. Which would pretty much explain the Howard years i suppose?

    On whether we need an election, Nah, calm down peoples. The govt actually has the right to do long term policy. Just because your not getting the policy you want is no reason to drag the country back to an election. What, we should have elections every time some lobby group gets upset at a particular piece of legislation?? Or have Recall Elections so we can change govts more often as we change our underware??

    Its actually getting rather hilarious. In some ways these calls for an election NOW, seem to be a logical but hyperactive extension of the “we was robbed” mentality that has been so prevalent in the writings and utterances of conservative apparatchiks since the 2010 election. It was always going to happen over something, sometime this term. Whats changed is that a government that they all hoped would fail early has actually been operating successful, they are about to lose on a couple of iconic issue, and are having to face up to the fact that they completely misread the situation post election. This must be really hard for Tony Abbott. his stuff ups are coming back to bite him big time, right now.

    Its interesting that there seems to be this fear out there, particularly among conservatives / tories, that if this minority govt is seen to work (as is pretty apparent so far) then the older model that says that the Govt MUST have a majority and a STRONG leader whom everyone obeys, might lose credibility.

    Fascinating stuff going on in Oz politics at the moment with lots of layers.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Dr. Sharma strikes again:

    20 Sept: Jamaica Gleaner: ‘Renewable sources are a power-system problem’
    “Renewable energy is not a technology problem, it is a power-system problem,” said Dr Chandrabhan Sharma, professor of energy systems at UWI’s St Augustine campus.
    Sharma explained that any energy system requires stability, security, and adequacy.
    “Renewable energy cannot react in time,” he said, speaking of the demands put on a system like Jamaica’s.
    Sharma added: “Renewable energy can supplement a system, but it can never be its basis.”
    In his address to an audience that included co-recipient of Al Gore’s 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Dr Anthony Chen, Sharma argued that global warming was a natural phenomenon related to solar activity and that global temperature increases were, in fact, the cause – not effect – of increased greenhouse gases.
    “The world has been led to believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing climate change,” said Sharma. Of the drive to create more renewable energy, he opined, “You don’t do something because the First World says so; you do something because it is good for your system.”…
    http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110920/lead/lead4.html

    00

  • #
    catamon

    “Treasury analysis was released just minutes before the inquiry convened.
    Another example of dishonesty and stifling of due process. Labor democracy in action!”

    Oh the humanity!!!! how dare they!!!

    Well:

    “The updated modelling on the impact of the carbon tax shows personal incomes will grow 0.1 percentage points less per year to 2050 under the scheme.”

    “The modelling looks at the impact of Labor’s proposed $23-a-tonne carbon price, following previous studies which used a $20-a-tonne price.

    “As expected, the updated modelling shows almost no difference with the previous modelling exercise,” Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in a joint statement.”

    So, pretty much a non-event then??

    00

  • #

    Some would say that voters in Oz have the memories attributed to goldfish. Which would pretty much explain the Howard years i suppose?

    Lucky you are smarter than all those other voters Catamon. Why don’t we just make you King?

    No one would be calling for an election if Gillard was doing a half-decent job and sticking to what she said she would do before the election.

    00

  • #

    People, if you stand further back, you will be able to see a different reality::: if Mrs. Gillard has to put her hand on the bible… well on Das Kapital; she would say this::: it has came to the point that; she hates that carbon tax more than any Australian. But obligation to ABC / union bosses and most of the other reporters from the private media, must be fulfilled; otherwise, she will get the boot as Mr. Rudd did. Can you people imagine: billions squandered – GLOBAL warming doesn’t exist… But if she introduces carbon tax = global warming didn’t happen; because she and the lefty extremist introduced the rip-off = they have saved the planet = from now, forever must obey what the Saviors demand!!!

    Can you imagine: if tax is not introduced – no GLOBAL warming ABC & SBS’ credibility gone – lots of the apparatchiks will lose their jobs. Senator Brow demands scrutinizing News limited, but not scrutinizing what used to be National Broadcaster ABC &SBS Pty Ltd botanical name (the Lefty’s Trumpets) ABC was originally established to present both sides of the story. B] in the private media people as Paul Kelly, Paul Bongiorno, Michele Grattan and thousand others will suffocate Julia. She must dance on their music. Those Egotist don’t want to lose their credibility; Julia is only their tool.

    Another factor is; people went with big trucks to Canberra, without having a list of demands. Unless is presented to the ABC’s viewers that they have being mislead = first demand, Big Perestroika in ABC & SBS. Another factor: couple of reporters and politicians that completely don’t believe in GLOBAL warming; their mail has being saturated by the Smarties; telling them that 98 was the hottest / 5BC was hotter. A] they know that garbage from Prof. Plimer. It’s only desensitizing them from any information that has substance. Those phony proofs have being invented by IPCC and lots of leading Warmist = they know is all crap (they have given those water pistols to Ian Plimer, to arm his apostils)

    They shifted the poll from 5-6⁰C warming by 2060, to 1,5⁰C warming in 100years – Skeptics are arguing that is going to be 0,5⁰C warming in 100years… It’s same as one camp saying; man can get pregnant 1,5kg to 5kg; the other camp saying: no man can get pregnant only 0,5kg baby… You tell me: why the Warmist need to admit the truth, with having Smarty opponents?! The Smarties are trying with dozens former phony GLOBAL warmings, to prove that is no global warming in 100y. Skeptics are constantly shooting themselves in the foot = the massive media propaganda / the conmen in CSIRO will not permit Julia to back off. Only part of the planet’s atmosphere can get warmer – other part simultaneously must get colder, that’s what the laws of physics say; can you argue against those laws? I challenge Warmist and Skeptics; as I did CSIRO / ABC. Everybody ducks for cover from real proofs

    ALL IT NEEDS IS: Skeptics to demand CSIRO: to prove /disprove Mitich formulas, correct / wrong. Would be the end of the misleading propaganda in few months. Garnaut, Flannery will take a runner. Instead, when a Sceptic starts reading my work; realizes that I don’t brag about warmer 98 /5BC – no stomach for real proofs – looks for exit… If anybody is prepared to read from the first sentence to the last, on my website = will realize that I have all the proofs, that can be all proven now, not to wait 100years. Therefore, unless Gillard’s advisers are confronted with real scientific proofs; she should be thankful more to prof. Plimer and his Smarties, than to Al Gore and Flannery. Here are all the proofs: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

    Warmist are going from Antarctic to Arctic, from the bottom of the sea to the top of every mountain for their proofs. If the Skeptics are scared to log on my website, because it has real proofs, not using any Warmist’ data as factual = it is all Skeptic’s fault. Stop blaming the Warmist – it’s their job to tell lies – same as nobody blames the crocodile for eating people. But presenting yourself as non-believer – but wasting your time debating sunspots… guilty as hell!!! Same sunspots are affecting Brazil and Sahara. Sunspots, not guilty, CO2 not guilty; closed minds active Skeptics – guilty as hell. This is constructive open challenge; because of importance and urgency.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    catamon @57

    “As expected, the updated modelling shows almost no difference with the previous modelling exercise,” Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in a joint statement.”

    Modelling supports modelling?- Don’t make me laugh- “GIGO”! Or perhaps I should say “Matching GIGO”! “As expected” is a telling comment- put the numbers in exactly the same way and get the same result, Quel surprise?

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Tristan @47

    Shh, they might be listening.

    Yes, YOU are! So what are you going to tell your controllers?

    But….No THEY’RE not -that’s the problem in a nutshell.

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Wes George @ 32 -

    “The carbon tax is NOT treason.”
    “treason • the action of betraying someone or something “.

    Sorry Wes. Whilst I agree that of itself, the carbon tax is not treason, the fact that it was brought in following the specific pre-election promise of “no carbon tax” repeated twice by Gillard and backed up by her deputy Swan, certainly seems to fit the betrayal definition above, even without the supplementary promises of widespread prior public consultation which would supposedly lead to some consensus.

    That promise was made specifically because internal Labor polling had indicated the party would have no chance of forming government otherwise. That polling was correct as shown by the closeness of the election.

    If Gillard and co. had any real confidence at all that imposing the carbon dioxide tax is “the right thing to do for Ausralia”, they would do as John Howard did with his major reform of the economy, the GST, and honestly put it to the Australian people in another election.

    The fact that they refuse to do so, and worse still are actively legislating to make it either impossible or as difficult and costly as possible to repeal, is an even greater “betrayal” of the Australian people and IMO firmly fits that definition of the crime of treason.

    Whilst I always look forward to and enjoy your informative posts and am certainly not looking for an argument nor to “poison the chalice” as you so eloquently put (and do not feel that I am doing so), it is some measure of the feelings of utter frustration and helplessness that I and many others are suffering at the unfolding events that I must agree to disagree with you on this particular point. Cheers.

    00

  • #
    catamon

    “Lucky you are smarter than all those other voters Catamon. Why don’t we just make you King?”

    Cool, where can we start the petition!! Thanks for your support.

    But seriously, the distinction shouldn’t really have anything to do with “smarter”. That’s a bit pejorative. Its more about the level of engagement and identification with the political process. Most voters out there, the ones who actually do make a difference at election time, are not particularly engaged until close the election. For me that’s indicated by how the polls tend to change in the lead up to the vote when the decision of who to vote for is real rather than hypothetical. Easy to be single issue focused earlier on in the cycle.

    Still, I would agree with Mel Brooks. Its good to be King.

    00

  • #

    Surprisingly, I am taking Catamon’s and others’ advice to chill, calm down, accept etc.

    I was doubtful about Tony Abbott for a couple of reasons, and the fact that his party leadership was won by the tiniest margin was little comfort. Over the last year I’ve realised that the skeptic/conservative component of Australia has found a champion. And the Green/GetUp component knows it.

    Julia Gillard is obsessed with Abbott. The Green/GetUp Left are obsessed with Abbott. He rolled Rudd, and nearly rolled a first term government seeking its second term. His dramatic gains are construed as defeat; we are fed the lines about his boofiness, his religiosity, his unpopularity with women etc. Needless to say, he is stoopid. No Mahler concerts, no Euromoney awards, no invites to Bloomsday readings for Tony!

    The Left are watching Abbott like a clumsy forward watching Peter Sterling. Abbott is watching the gaps between the forwards. The Left want to Abbott-proof their legislation, even make Abbott responsible for their own legislation and blunderings. Abbott is watching the try-line.

    He leads a party full of Watermelons, so he fudges and compromises plenty. But this Abbott is a good mix of faith, sense and ruthlessness. What you need.

    I’m not the one sending this message. It’s the disdain of his opponents that sends the message. Watch them. They blink.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Catamon @63

    Most voters out there, the ones who actually do make a difference at election time, are not particularly engaged until close the election

    So by that you mean it actually could get considerably worse come election time for Labor than it already is when the rising tide of resentment at the Carbon tax is publicised- when those uncommitted people “engage” by finding out what a lamentable cascade of failed policy has issued from the current government. Can’t wait.

    00

  • #

    Thanks mosomoso
    loved the line about a clumsy forward watching Peter Stirling.
    It remind me from a joke many (many) years back when a noted Sydney Rugby League club paid a fortune to lure Kevin Sheedy to coach their poorly performing team.

    The first thing ‘Sheeds’ did upon arrival at his new club was to take the whole team roster to the closest forest.

    Lining them all up at the edge of the forest he then told them to run flat out through the forest.

    When a curious member of the teams management asked ‘Sheeds’ what was the purpose for this, the laconic ‘Sheeds’ replied.

    “The ones who run into the trees are the Forwards. The ones who run around the trees are the Backs!”

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Melbournite

    In regard to one government conferring property rights, and the next having to pay compensation, it would seem to me that the new government should merely make it clear in the lead up to the election that it will NOT be bound in any way by the actions of the previous government. This gives ample warning (and our expressed will as voters of course) to any individual or business i.e. buyer beware. Then pass the necessary legislation endorsed by both Upper and Lower house majority, but also, include a rat tail, deferring any consideration of compensation or exgratia compensation to be considered by the named political entities should they ever be endorsed by voters to govern Australia in the future. Thus the Greens and Labor will be hoist by their own petard. Rather fitting and may deter others from such economic tricks.

    00

  • #
    fred nerk

    Due to LACK of interest and the carbon tax, Australia HAS been cancelled till further NOTICE.Sitting on your arse waiting for another election will not stop this nonsense.WAKE UP AUSTRALIA the alarm has gone off. Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is life.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Blvr @ 12

    “risk of catastrophic climate change”

    Try this simple analysis of using the IPCC logic and assumptions to show that there will be no catastrophe from CO2.

    http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/why-the-co2-greenhouse-gas-debate-doesnt-matter/

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Mosomoso @ 64

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Which is why the watermelons are determined to go into the next election with their very own “climate change” policy – complete with ETS – in their hip pocket, and a shiny Goldman Sachs banker waiting in the wings to take over.

    Abbott’s only function is to play the Drover’s Dog, and lead them to an election win.

    After that he’s redundant.

    00

  • #

    High stakes with this option, I know, and look, I humbly apologise for ‘luring’ the wonderfully appreciated Doctor Smith back, but he did (unintentionally) offer a way to stop this legislation stone cold motherless dead.

    When asked about his sanguine approach to ‘his’ impending ‘Nuclear Power’ Option, he mentioned that a very simple amendment to the Bill could be made to add the word ‘Nuclear’ to the Clean Energy Bills.

    If that word was added, in a way it would ‘wedge’ the Labor Party to see if they really do want a Nuclear Future, and my impression is that they do not favour that option at all, and certain Factions would scream ‘blue bloody murder’ if that was indeed put forward as an option.

    Those factional members would then be forced to cross the floor when a vote came for fear of alienating forever their backers.

    The Greens Party would oppose it flat out, and thus the Bills would be defeated.

    As i said, it’s high stakes I know, and I’m sure all of you would join with me in a sincere vote of thanks to Doctor Smith for bringing this option up.

    (Nyuk nyuk nyuk!)

    Tony.

    00

  • #
  • #
    catamon

    “So by that you mean it actually could get considerably worse come election time for Labor than it already is when the rising tide of resentment at the Carbon tax is publicised- when those uncommitted people “engage” by finding out what a lamentable cascade of failed policy has issued from the current government. Can’t wait.”

    Interesting point of view Winston, but you have to be cognizant of a trap that a lot of the politically engaged fall into. Because we identify with and are concerned by particular issues, we tend to perceive that the electorate at large are as well. Not always true. Have a look at:

    http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

    It has a couple of questions on the Carbon Pricing Scheme. Look at both and then decide if you really believe in that “rising tide of resentment” is going to make the Govt fail at an election in the latter half of 2013.
    Polls aren’t predictive i know, but as an indicator of where we are politically at the moment, well, there might not be as many people out there who hold similar views to yourself as you would like to think.

    That’s a reality that any person who is interested in the political process, and policy and its implementation has to face up to eventually, from whatever perspective they are coming from.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit

    Perhaps going through the courts to stop the Carbon legislation isn’t such a far fetched idea …

    We might learn from these young Israeli legal eagles who stopped the 2nd Gaza flotilla by tying them up in red tape (from Melanie Phillips, June 2011):

    “Is a bunch of young Israeli lawyers working round the clock sustained only by Diet Coke, falafel and cigarettes about to pull off the legal equivalent of the Six-Day War?

    Israel famously won that war before it even started by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Now it’s beginning to look as if the Gaza flotilla of fools and fanatics may be holed below the waterline before it even sets off on its cynical and potentially murderous stunt.

    [The flotilla] was supposed to have sailed by now. Today, however, it was reported that it now may not set sail before next week. The main reason is a series of unprecedented and ingenious manoeuvres by Israeli lawyers which have tied up the boats in legal actions mainly concerning insurance and registration issues.”

    “Most of the credit should surely go to the Israeli activist law firm Shurat haDin which believes in bankrupting terrorism through a creative use of the law.”

    Read the whole thing here and marvel!

    http://melaniephillips.com/the-flotilla-and-the-third-intifada

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources

    Speaker: Murry Salby, Chair of Climate, Macquarie University

    http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/2011/THE_SYDNEY_INSTITUTE_MURRY_SALBY_2_AUGUST_2011.mp3

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Catamon

    Interesting point of view Winston, but you have to be cognizant of a trap that a lot of the politically engaged fall into. Because we identify with and are concerned by particular issues, we tend to perceive that the electorate at large are as well. Not always true.

    I would be the first to admit that my opinion is worth no more or less than anyone elses, and that it is possible that entrenched ideas about Climate Change propagated by the MSM are a hurdle to be overcome.

    However, when people say they want “action on Climate Change”, most have no idea what that action would involve, and NIMBYism certainly will mean that most will not sacrifice their own wellbeing to do it. The hip pocket nerve is a very powerful dissuader, and the tax hasn’t even seen the light of day yet. Any boost in power costs for average families will be immediately interpreted as Carbon tax related even if it isn’t the whole cause.

    Your confidence in the lack of negative repercussions of the tax is misplaced, I believe. Make sure you are not guilty of projecting YOUR own perceptions on the wider community also. Just to give you an example, if my accountant feels his lifestyle is being impinged by higher taxation on home energy consumption, what stops him from jacking up his fees to do my taxes by 20% on a whim as a consequence of his desire to maintain his lifestyle at the current level. If he does, I’ll know that’s why, but theres no way to prove it. And I bet treasury modelling doesn’t account for increases in fees from lawyers, accountants, medical specialists, chiropractors, herbalists, you name it- see what a pandora’s box you open up? And who do you think they will blame? Give you one guess.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit

    James Delingpole in fine form today:

    “A rogue trader at one of the world’s largest banks (USA Inc., second in economic power only to China Inc.) has been exposed as the biggest fraudster in the history of mankind. The fraud – conservatively estimated at $38.6 billion, though others believe it could be at least 20 times bigger once his secret trading accounts in a file mysteriously marked “Stimulus Package” are fully investigated – comfortably exceeds the paltry $2.3 billion losses run up by UBS trader Kweku Adoboli.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100105725/rogue-trader-in-38-6-billion-green-jobs-fraud/

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Lysander Spooner – No Treason – The Constitution

    “……To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their “subjects;” who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.

    NT.2.2.4 Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.

    NT.2.2.5 The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer – one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

    NT.2.2.6 Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.

    NT.2.2.7 For example, our fathers – even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects – certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power…… ”

    http://praxeolgy.net/LS-NT-2.htm

    Did Julia and Wayne give the Australian people fair warning?

    00

  • #
    catamon

    “And who do you think they will blame? Give you one guess.”

    And that is why politics can be a complex, fascinating business and why the authority to govern shifts between groups and ideologies over time. A well functioning democracy has stabilizers built into it so that the rate of those shifts is moderated to provide for stability, but allows those shifts so that the system can adapt over time.

    There are consequences to adaptation. In the current context i guess were mainly talking about the carbon permits as property issue? There is something to be said for a “licensing” approach if you look at the Carbon Price bills from a narrow one country perspective. With that approach the only (hah!) political issue with the Coalition repealing the legislation would be the one of changing the tax scales again and revoking pension increases.

    However its probably worth looking at the program from a broader perspective of linking our Carbon Price scheme to Global action. For that to occur i think the permits as property approach makes more sense. I cant see anyone wanting to get involved in the Australian carbon price scheme if the “license” could be revoked at whim. Will be interesting to see if other schemes around the world evolve to be more like ours over time if global linkages become accepted as a concept??

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Catamon @ 79

    As I understand it, other countries have deliberately avoided the “property” approach for exactly the reasons being voiced by those opposed to it in Australia.

    00

  • #
    Jon-Anders Grannes

    I think the reason she can and is doing this political suicide is because she has the support and backing of the UNEP/Grennpeace/WWF(radical enviros).
    Look at the early speeches from Strong at UNEP etc etc.. revolution!

    Its like the catolic church, she might loose all political credit in Australia, but the global leftist UN/UNEP/Greenpeace/WWF movement is going to give her even better paid jobs and a higher international status(Eco Saint?).

    Will she also transfer political power too UNEP/UN?

    Soo when you kick her out she might end up in UNEP and still eco control you?

    ?

    Stop all political and economic support of everything that is behind this non democratic attack against Australia.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Here is something from out of right field (certainly not left of anything). Do we wish that this person was running for election in Australia?

    http://hillbuzz.org/2011/09/04/full-text-of-governor-sarah-palins-indianola-iowa-speech-on-september-3rd-2011/

    I had taken my opinion of Sarah Palin from the MSM (i.e. lunatic fringe). Reading this speech (i.e. getting some facts) has changed my viewpoint. Go figure …

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Kevin Moore:

    Did Julia & Wayne (& Kev before them ) explain to the Australian people that they were leading the Nation that elected them into submitting our economic sovereignty to the UN?

    How will the electorate judge our leaders & their Fabian Ideals when we can’t turn on the light & keep warm let alone pay the mortgage?

    Are they really working for the Australian people?

    00

  • #
    janama

    sorry about the post at 75 – it has already been dealt with.

    00

  • #
    blvr

    @Joanne
    The reason that we won’t notice the carbon tax is because the change in prices will be trivial compared to day to day fluctuations that we currently experience for goods and services.

    The carbon tax is a small investment to hedge against the potential for catastrophic climate change. What we will see is a slight reduction in new employment in energy intensive industries. You are entirely correct when you say that people “won’t be sacked with a note to say it was due to the carbon tax”. This statement can be rephrased as “people will be hired in clean energy industries instead of energy intensive industries”. How is that a bad outcome? Example: the mining industry, which cannot hire people quickly enough, will need to hire fewer people. The natural attrition rate in this industry is so high that they won’t have to sack anyone – at least as a direct result of the tax. Instead, people will be employed elsewhere, implementing energy efficiency projects and related work. Is this a bad outcome? In the long term, we will have a clean, low carbon, low energy society. The impact to GDP will be trivial in relative terms. How is that bad?

    You say that the impact will be $1,600 per year for a family of four, but there are significant tax cuts that will offset much of this cost, particularly for the poor.

    As to the suggestion to call a snap election: this is an extremely complex policy area, which covers a wide range of very specialised areas of knowledge. You are putting words into my mouth when you suggest that I consider it “banal” – it is anything but. For this reason alone, it would be wrong to put it to a general vote. The average person cannot hope to arrive at an informed decision when he or she is a) being bombarded by misinformation at every turn b) has insufficient time to research the issue properly and/or c) not educated in the relevant disciplines and therefore ill-equipped to understand all of the issues that need to be considered.

    OK: that last one is probably going to be contentious, but think about it: what percentage of any country, even one as well educated as Australia, has the time or education to properly research the economics, ecology, environmental science, meteorology, atmospheric science, forestry, geology, paleontology, geosciences, biology and all of the other disciplines that are required to arrive at an informed conclusion – particularly when they are getting different answers from different people about each one, assuming they have the time to think about it? The answer is almost certainly less than 50% – I would actually put it in single digits, maybe even decimals. That means at least 50% of the vote will not be fully informed about the issue.

    This is not a problem that can be solved after work, or over a weekend beer during a barbecue, or even by reading the latest science novel. If you put it to a vote, the vote will therefore go to those with the loudest voice. This is not necessarily going to be the right outcome. In fact, it’s probably going to be the wrong outcome, because if you don’t understand something, you will tend to want to avoid it. So the tiny minority that have the time and education to understand the issue are going to be completely drowned out by the tide of people that don’t have the time or education to understand it, but are nonetheless forced to vote.

    BTW I’m not saying that I am qualified to vote on the issue, so don’t imagine that I am trying to come over all superior-like. All I’m saying is that there are some issues that can effectively be put to a referendum (because that’s basically what this proposal comes down to) and some issues that are not suitable, and this one falls into the latter camp.

    So that’s why I think it would be wrong to hold a snap election.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Catamon @73

    Q. Do you support or oppose the Government’s proposal to introduce a carbon pricing scheme from 1 July 2012, which will require industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit?

    What would the responses have been if it said “which will require industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit, knowing that all those costs will be passed in full on to you, the consumer, in increased fees and prices of electricity, gas, and everyday household essential items”

    I doubt that the percentages would be as inspiring if that was the framing of the question, rather than the biased way it was framed in the poll to suggest that only industry would pay the impost.

    00

  • #
    blvr

    @Truthseeker I’m not qualified to interpret that analysis. He seems to be claiming that he has disproved AGW. Shouldn’t that be submitted to a decent peer-reviewed journal? Then we could all go back to our day jobs.

    As far as I’m concerned, until it has been published for a few months, it’s just bits on a magnetic platter somewhere in cyberspace.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    pattoh @ 83

    See my post @ 68 “Windfarms”

    00

  • #
    blvr

    @Winston

    I think that come election time, people will have discovered that all of the hype about economic impact was just that. I predict an upswing – absent some unrelated issue. Whether it is significant enough to cancel all of the downswing to date is another matter.

    00

  • #
    blvr

    @Tony from Oz

    Sorry to come in late on this (was awaiting moderation approval).

    Australia negotiated an average 8% increase on 1990 levels by 2008-2012 (i.e. the average of annual emissions between 2008 and 2012 was to be no more than 8% higher than emissions in 1990) under the Kyoto Protocol under the Howard Government. It’s not captured in the grab you posted but it’s on the UNFCCC website.

    The 5% by 2020 target is therefore unrelated both in time and target.

    00

  • #
    catamon

    ‘ rather than the biased way it was framed in the poll to suggest that only industry would pay the impost.”

    Are you serious?? You consider that biased? Here on planet Earth that’s actually a short, to the point question.

    You see, pollsters who know their jobs would never do the long form question providing a certain perspective in the question as you suggest, because they know THAT would bias the response. Its called push polling, and serious polling agencies who wish to maintain a reputation for ethical behavior avoid it.

    The question should not shape the response, OR seek to educate the respondent to any particular viewpoint. Just to find out what their response is at the time the questions asked.

    Introduce another variable in a follow up question (as they did) if you like, but if you want to be taken seriously, DONT ever push poll. Business who are you bread and butter wont trust your results if you do that.

    00

  • #

    Blvr,

    Many of us believe that Green Jobs, where, as you say, “people will be employed elsewhere, implementing energy efficiency projects and related work”, are a pleasant subject for the Fairfax and Guardian environment pages, but have a large component of pixie dust. But leave all that to one side.

    The carbon tax – which is best described as a pre-paid transferable fine, combined with flat-out fines – would be just another tax, far worse than GST, better than the execrable payroll tax, (though with a unique and delicious bureaucracy, of course). It would be just a tax, filtering through into our daily consumption, squashing a few jobs and businesses…

    Except for that word “transferable”! Except for the fact that it is acknowledged to be a lead in to a “trading scheme”!

    Remember Lehman Brothers (Euromoney award winners in ’06)? Remember the Global Financial Crisis?

    Who gets hit by a bus then lies down in the road the next day?

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Catamon @91
    Point taken, probably I shouldn’t be so facetious in my responses. But, nonetheless, the omission of mentioning potential ramifications on cost of living does make the poll results fairly unrepresentative(“bias” was probably too strong a word) of the reality come election time. If those same people who were polled feel that such an impost has been placed upon them, then their responses will be irrelevant to the way they vote on the day. After all, isn’t that the point of polling them? What people say, and what they do are often 2 very different things.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    blvr @ 85

    Your post reads like a press release straight from JuLIAR or Combet’s office. Do people like you have a electrode hard-wired to your cortex that you plug into your ipod for the daily spin update?

    . . . the potential for catastrophic climate change

    Just what is the “potential” for “catastrophic climate change”?
    One in a hundred? A thousand? A million?

    If I’m going to be forced to pay for a “hedge” (insurance) against something happening, I want to reasonably convinced of the likelihood of it happening at all. After all, I’m not being forced to pay to insure against a meteor strike, for good reason.

    Where is the “evidence”, or even reasonable suggestion that a rise of 1 or 2 degrees (if it even happens – a big “if”), will be in the least bit “catastrophic”. In fact all the historical and geological evidence shows, and is supported by logical reasoning, that “warm” is beneficial to most species on the planet, including humans.

    “The average person cannot hope to arrive at an informed decision when he or she is . . . b) has insufficient time to research the issue properly . . . “

    So, the Gillard govt answer is to rush the issue through parliament, gag debate, and scrap the Senate committee system to ensure everyone remains in the dark as much as possible?

    “and/or c) not educated in the relevant disciplines and therefore ill-equipped to understand all of the issues that need to be considered.”

    I learned about the 25 to 30 year alternate warming and cooling cycle of climate in science at high school back in the Sixties. Nothing has happened, or is happening, or appears likely to be about to happen, that does not fit in with what I learned over 40 years ago. Neither does it require an advanced degree to understand.

    Perhaps people wouldn’t be so “ill-equipped to understand” if we went back to teaching our children science, instead of the thinly-veiled Greenpeace-style socialist environmental propaganda that masquerades as “science” in our schools today.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Blvr @ 85

    This is not necessarily going to be the right outcome. In fact, it’s probably going to be the wrong outcome, because if you don’t understand something, you will tend to want to avoid it. So the tiny minority that have the time and education to understand the issue are going to be completely drowned out by the tide of people that don’t have the time or education to understand it, but are nonetheless forced to vote.

    What arrogant nonsense. Maybe this why the ALP
    is so far down in the polls. Your elitist attitude to the electorate is obviously clear to the average voter.
    You suggest that come election time everyone will not notice the effect of the tax and it will back to normal for the ALP. You were already scraping the bottom of the barrel in the polls before the detail of the tax came out so there are obviously many other issues the electorate don’t like.
    But keep telling yourself everything will be OK at the election, if that makes you feel better.
    Someone linked this article in a thread a few weeks ago, it is well worth a read

    http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/real-global-warming-consensus-or-why-intellectuals-hate-capitalism

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Reminds me of Berlin in the 1930s. Wont be long before Gillard declares herself Chancellor of the Federation. I think the NAZIs made it impossible for any other party to change anything as in this disgusting “carbon (plant food) tax” legislation. More great news for the One World Gov of Banki Moon(ie) and the UN. They love this stuff (what the AU Gov has done). Seig Heil! The last time this happened it took a world war to get rid of it.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I have only now had time to come to come back to this blog, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

    I have had some involvement (professionally) with legal drafting (not as a drafter, but as a researcher), and it is not a fast process. It is not something that you can toss off in a few weeks, and certainly not of the size we are seeing here.

    These proposed bills have been in gestation since before the last election, and I would suggest a long time before the last election.

    It is my guess that they were originally drafted by lawyers working for the Greens. The deal that Brown offered to Gillard (and possibly to Abbot) was that adopting the draft legislation as policy, was the price of forming a coalition government that included the Greens. Neither party could get the numbers without accepting that position. It was a hijack. It was election by coercion. Brown made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

    In the event, Gillard and the independents sold their souls to get into power. That is how, and why, this legislation is being forced on the Australian people against their wishes. Gillard is not in charge. She is weak and she is vulnerable. Brown has made it clear that she has no options left. If she does not see this through, she will never be in a position of power again.

    This explains why she said, “There will be no Carbon Tax in any Government I lead”, when she was free, and then later went ahead and started talking about “Carbon Pollution” once the reality of being in coalition started to bite.

    Power is a drug, and she is hooked, she will see this through to the bitter end, and still she will fail because although the legislation will be in place, it will not achieve its intent. The law of unintended consequences will kick in, and Australia will end up with the same level of social harmony as Greece. In fact, Greece may be safer place to move to.

    00

  • #
    NicG

    Rereke Whakaaro @ 97.

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The second half of your post agrees with my understanding of the compromises made for the sake of power. Nowadays ‘politics’ and ‘principles’ are words not normally used in the same sentence. Also this highlights why the political system as a whole is so out of touch with the electorate – and not just in Aus. Pollies are a separate species to regular folk.

    The only point I would make about your post;

    Brown has made it clear that she has no options left. If she does not see this through, she will never be in a position of power again.

    I think that if she does force through this legislation she will never be trusted again, not even with a bent penny let alone a position of power. Gillard is in a lose/lose situation – a cleft stick of her own making.

    Cheers
    NicG.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Rereke and NicG.

    I believe Gillard could have set Brown back on his heels. Where was he going to go? The last thing he would want to do is bring about a fresh election.

    Problem for us is that Gillard has always been a creature of the far left. Had she shown some real spine, she could have threatened Brown with an election and probably would have gained back votes at Brown’s expense. She wants this “carbon” policy just as much as Brown. Her two-faced statements before the election prove it.

    Whatever, regardless of her blatant bribes, she’ s headed the same way as the lamentable Joan Kirner in 1992.

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    “The Japanese used the word “Kamikaze” to describe its suicide bomber pilots during World War II.”

    “Kamikaze” means “divine wind”, which is what the Gillard government is counting on to meet Australia’s energy needs.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Reminds me of Berlin in the 1930s. Wont be long before Gillard declares herself Chancellor of the Federation. I think the NAZIs made it impossible for any other party to change anything as in this disgusting “carbon (plant food) tax” legislation. More great news for the One World Gov of Banki Moon(ie) and the UN. They love this stuff (what the AU Gov has done). Seig Heil! The last time this happened it took a world war to get rid of it.

    Do you actually believe any of this?

    If Gillard was about to declare herself a dictator, why didn’t she just ignore the High Court judgement that has stopped offshore processing of asylum seekers?

    Why has she gone through all the ‘hassle’ of having a bill drafted to amend the Migration Act so that the Minister for Immigration can implement the agreement with Malaysia?

    If Gillard is about to become a dictator, she has a strangely democratic way of going about implementing policies. She has accepted a High Court ruling, and has gone back to the Parliament to have to law changed in accordance with our 110 year old democratic processes.

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    The current legislation is a modified version of the original CPRS (which in itself is a mish mash of several earlier attempt that made it to various stages of the process). So the lawyers would have had plenty to work with on this one, shortening the process. That is, they didn’t have to start with a blank slate.

    00

  • #
    GBees

    blvr @12 and @85
    “Taking action on greenhouse gas emissions is an appropriate response to the risk of catastrophic climate change”

    blvr – please produce the evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing runaway catastrophic global warming… it exists nowhere …

    you’re a fool if you think a cascading tax like the carbon tax which flows through every single product and service in the economy will have minimal effect. your statement tells me you have no economic, business or financial qualifications or experience. me thinks you’re a Labor/Greenie troll

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I’m not really fond of terms like treason; they are counterproductive in that the system has inbuilt political checks in the Commonwealth/State dynamic and equally pertinently the courts. A review of High Court decisions involving Commonwealth and State conflict is always relevant with cases favouring the expansion of Commonwealth power over the states like The Engineers Case, The Tasmanian Dam case and others which checked Commonwealth expansion like The Bank Nationalisation case and The Political Advertising case.

    The dominant lesson for this is that non-political [ie other than an election] redress should go through the courts consistent with the constitutional structure of the nation. For instance a state enterprise which is affected by the Carbon Tax could challenge the Commonwealth’s right to impinge on State powers. There seems to me to be possible fruitful grounds for enterprises to challenge the Tax on the basis that it contravenes S.92. However, at the end of the day you need a brave litigant with deep pockets. I don’t see any sign of that.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Blvr @87

    “@Truthseeker I’m not qualified to interpret that analysis. ”

    Says it all really. Talk about kicking an own goal and then celebrating it …

    Logic and analysis is it’s own end. Being “peer reviewed” means nothing the the laws of physics. Galileo, Einstein and Darwin all managed to do science and advance human knowledge without “peer review”. Your comments here show that you are incapable of arguing the science and that what you have to say is nothing more than “bits on a magnetic platter somewhere in cyberspace”.

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    Geez if everyone could just let up on the negative vibes surely we’d be living in a better place for a start. People calling me a liar, clueless, Incapable, a fool, arrogant, elitist. Hurts my feelings…

    00

  • #

    blvr: You say that the impact will be $1,600 per year for a family of four, but there are significant tax cuts that will offset much of this cost, particularly for the poor.

    There is no productivity gain to the nation in using more expensive energy. The cost of $1600 per family must be paid for by someone somewhere. The government can’t make energy from thin air. Even if it shuffles money back to some families, that only makes others twice as poor. If the people who pay are the effective ones, the ones who make stuff and employ people, they’ll be spending less on other things — like jobs, like products to keep other industries alive. There is no escaping from the reality that as the nation emits less CO2 we will be poorer — less able to afford health care, environmental programs, aid to foreigners.

    Now if there was a real environmental benefit — it might be different. But you and I know there isn’t.

    The last bastion of rascals. The voters are too stupid or uniformed.

    That means at least 50% of the vote will not be fully informed about the issue.

    So inform them. Have a televised series of debates. The case for and against by the best on both sides, with graphs, photos, interviews whatever it takes. The tax will cost billions, I reckon we could afford to spend $50 m on the shows, and $50 million on the vote.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Blvr @ 106

    In this blog we look at evidence using actual data to draw conclusions …

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    The Queen and the GG (despite her son in law being the Assistant Treasurer) have no powers and the only time is if the senate causes a double dissolution like in Whitlam’s
    time.

    I hardly think they will do it over the carbon tax unless the ALP cross the floor.
    The Malaysian solution is going no where and now Gillard is blaming the Opposition.
    Amendments to the carbon tax, given 1 day before a scheduled meeting.

    A high court challenge could do it, drop the treason thing though, I agree that would be hard to challenge. But fraud and incorrect science might prove a better way of stopping it. If Thomson is away, I bet Turnbull will pair with him. After all Malcolm doesn’t want any of his clean energy or carbon credits downgraded does he?

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @Joanne The tax will cause people to modify their purchasing decisions because it will make low carbon goods and services relatively cheaper than energy intensive products. To say that families will be $1,600 per year worse off is to ignore the potential for manufacturers and others to adjust their processes so that they are less energy – and therefore carbon – intensive.

    So the cost will probably be less than modeled and of course the benefit is the avoidance of catastrophic climate change as I have pointed out earlier.

    If there were no risk of AGW then there would be absolutely no need for the tax. We agree on that point. My question to you is: if you were to hypothetically accept AGW, would you also then accept the tax? I can certainly confirm my vice versa position.

    As for the vote, people will call me arrogant (again) and hurt my poor feelings (again) but the fact remains that even an educated scientist has trouble discerning who is telling the truth when all he has to work with is a cacophony of noise. What hope does a laborer, cleaner or unemployed actor have to peel back the layers and get to the bottom of it all? I’m not saying these examples are worse people than you or I – we’re all equal. Some people are just better suited to certain activities. You won’t see me on the silver screen, for instance. A debate isn’t going to help them, when scientists are pitted against professional debaters. Leaflets in the mail aren’t going to help when you have Alan Jones spitting into the microphone every morning. A website isn’t going to help when there blogs like this one caning the science. The government makes decisions every day without holding a referendum every time, that’s why it’s called representative government.

    To top it all off, the debate has become so emotional (just read some of the posts on this thread) that people aren’t even thinking straight any more. People are inciting others to take up arms, march in the streets, kill research scientists. How could this possibly lead to a rational outcome?

    Ok enough of that, now a challenge to see if anyone can respond without resorting to comments intended to belittle. Can people here play the ball instead of the man?

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Blvr I have searched through all the comments on this thread and there have been no personal attacks against you. The replies to your unsubstantiated assertions have been many and thorough and it is you that have not addressed them. Don’t try to play the victim card here. It is just more attempted misdirection since you won’t engage on the central premise that is the justification for this legislation. There is no crisis to be averted, no reason to impose more burdens on the economy and the only argument you have is “None of the modelling that I’ve seen indicates a major hit to GDP”. Hardly an argument that holds up to any empirical scrutiny.

    00

  • #

    Here’s the prob, blvr. If CAGW were true, and action needed to be taken, the remedies proposed currently by warmists would be a veritable encyclopedia of things not to do. All of which leads to more skepticism.

    The recent waterfront purchases of Carbon Cate and Flannery, Branson’s space tourism, Gore’s resource-gobbling nabob lifestyle…these things may merely be the comical fringe of CAGW. However, there is an element of insincerity right through the “concern” of believers. For example, nobody is in a hurry to change fire policy across rural Australia, though that would be a very direct and immediate measure to be taken right now. Why don’t people care? Because it’s all cost and effort, with no margin for scam or manipulation.

    The most obvious insincerity, highlighted time and again by TonyfromOz, is the refusal to modernise coal-power, though everyone knows we will continue to need it for decades. As if wasteful,decaying but essential coal plants weren’t enough of an insult to the intelligence, we are mining coal, black and brown, in a revenue-seeking frenzy which ignores basic conservation concerns. (Remember conservation?) 75% percent of that coal goes offshore, to be burnt in the same atmosphere as the one we are breathing now. (Thankfully, China burns Australian coal in better plants than ours.)

    Lastly, enough has been said about the scam of toy-technologies like wind and solar. One frequent contributor to this forum has seriously declared that investment in such frippery is good because its sheer cost and unreliability will cause us to “shift” osmotically to nuclear. Mass blackouts from the closure (or maybe sheer decrepitude) of coal power will likewise encourage us to “shift”. He thinks nuclear is great…he just won’t inhale!

    So, blvr, if you want more respect paid to that faction of science which posits CAGW, the proponents of CAGW need to respect our intelligence, though we may be humble cleaners, labourers, unemployed actors etc. You see, blvr, the part that is easily comprehended by lay-people is so fraught with absurdity that we cannot help but draw unfavourable conclusions about the rest.

    By the way, if anyone wants to respond to this comment of mine, please don’t republish slabs of it, but decorated with a graffitti of their own thoughts. It’s a stunt that creates confusion, takes up space, makes rebuttal unfairly awkward, and gives the illusion of analysis without the substance.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Joanne at 107:

    There is no escaping from the reality that as the nation emits less CO2 we will be poorer — less able to afford health care, environmental programs, aid to foreigners.

    I disagree. France has the cleanest air quality and lowest greenhouse emissions per capita in Europe because 80% of its energy comes from nuclear. During the period that France adopted nuclear power its GDP per capita has more than doubled, and is only a bit less than Australia’s. In fact France is the world’s 5th biggest economy whereas Australia is about 13th (but rising quickly).

    And remember, the Coalition accepts climate change science; hence it has a policy of cutting carbon emissions by the same amount by 2020 as the government. However the difference is that the Coalition proposes a socialist tax and spend direct action policy that is entirely based on the assumption that politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra are better at allocating resources than markets.

    I propose to you that this method of carbon abatement would end up costing double, triple, or quadruple what the government’s market mechanism will cost. This means higher taxes, and more money spent by the government on carbon abatement. Which means less money for everything including health programs and foreign aid.

    00

  • #

    Back in the 70s, France was heavily reliant on oil and suffered the consequences of the ’73 shock.

    France had a few dwindling coal-fields, uncompetitive with open-cut fields elsewhere. There was, and is, some gas at Lacq, near the Pyrenees.

    In 1974, with the president ailing, France’s Gaullist PM, the fairly conservative Messmer, announced nukes. Just like that. And, because such things take a lot of time and planning, work started immediately.

    Then they built the nukes. They just did it.

    Even if people see a parallel between the effects of genuine shortages and the imposed shortages caused by an ETS, it is impossible to see any sense in massive programs implementing toy-technologies which are ruinous in their financial and conservation effects, with the argument that their sheer inadequacy will cause a “shift” or “transition” to something better.

    Want something better? Make it. Do it. Don’t give me Chinese burns to get me to do a job. Hand me some tools and some cash…now!

    France continued, of course, to burn oil, and what coal they could mine or buy, till nukes were on-stream. The notion that one should deliberately downgrade a first-world nation’s power supply in order to bring nuclear energy to the fore is more like Phnom Penh 1975 than Paris 1974.

    The expression of strong belief in nukes, combined with a lack of any evident will or commitment, probably deserves to be called bizarre.

    Still, if anyone wants to disagree, here’s my chin. But please don’t serve my own text back to me, reduced to rags by cut-and-paste, with your own ponderings inserted between the shreds.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Want something better? Make it. Do it. Don’t give me Chinese burns to get me to do a job. Hand me some tools and some cash…now!

    Um, asking for a hand out is socialism.

    00

  • #

    My words, which, of course, you cut and pasted, have nothing to do with hand-outs. I can see what hand-outs have to do with socialism, but that helps neither of us.

    When France paid people to build nukes it wasn’t giving them hand-outs. It was employing them. As far as conformity to free-market dogma goes, I’ll give you a big tip. The best ideas make the worst dogmas. Governments can intervene, tax, spend and regulate. They just need to do it well and judiciously. Rudd and Gillard are examples of doing it badly and injudiciously. The government need to go because it sucks, not because it’s failing to follow the Milton Friedman textbook.

    Lastly, when you quote people using that miraculous b-quote button, try reading what you quote and also read the context. Better still, stop quoting. You do it with more enthusiasm than competence.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    My words, which, of course, you cut and pasted, have nothing to do with hand-outs.

    You proposed a need for tools and money. That’s another term for hand out, or at the very least a subsidy.

    The best ideas make the worst dogmas. Governments can intervene, tax, spend and regulate. They just need to do it well and judiciously. Rudd and Gillard are examples of doing it badly and injudiciously.

    Give us an example of Rudd and Gillard implementing poor regulation or taxation?

    When answering the question please take into account that federal government revenue as a proportion of GDP is lower now than at any time during the Howard government.

    This year tax to GDP will be around 23.2% In the year John Howard lost the election, revenue to GDP was 24.9%. The first budget delivered by Wayne Swan reduced this to 23.3%. If you don’t believe me, read the figures for yourself:
    http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/overview/html/overview_48.htm

    John Howard’s government is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history when you take into account the size of the economy.

    The government need to go because it sucks, not because it’s failing to follow the Milton Friedman textbook.

    “because it sucks” is frankly a lame criticism of the government. If someone wrote that on a first year politics essay they would be failed.

    00

  • #

    Now, Adam Smith, keep your finger from that b-quote button. Read. Comprehend. Examine the very words you feel like quoting, eg “well” and “badly”, “judiciously” and “injudiciously”, then their context. Don’t translate, don’t presume. You won’t need all that follow-up tripe about statistics or why Gillard sucks.

    Try and make your responses relevant to what you are reading, however much you dislike what you are reading.

    No! Keep your finger from that b-quote button! Abstinence will help you to read.

    If you think a need for tools and money has a rigid logical equivalency to a hand-out, and consequently to socialism, that’s a thinking problem, not a reading problem. I don’t know what you should do about that.

    But I am sure you need to lay off that b-quote button.

    00

  • #

    People

    who

    need

    go

    to

    University

    to

    do

    Politics

    deserve

    all

    they

    get

    I guess now we know what your Doctorate is, er, Professor.
    I also guess we’d all fail at Politics then, eh!

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    Adam Smith:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 9:03 pm
    “I propose to you that this method of carbon abatement would end up costing double, triple, or quadruple what the government’s market mechanism will cost.”

    If it’s such a good solution why do they have to insert poison pills into the legislation?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    If the legal purists can’t couch this government’s actions in pursuit of an irrevocable ETS/Carbon Tax into treason, how far from Tyranny is it ?

    Charles (1) was terminated for his cavalier attitude to the Commonwealth!

    Where is the mandate to engage in what appears to be petulant vandalism to the nation’s future?

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    If it’s such a good solution why do they have to insert poison pills into the legislation?

    There are no poison pills in the legislation. For a market to operate effectively, people must have confidence in the worth of the assets that they are trading. That’s why they will be considered property rights under the constitution.

    Would you prefer the state constitutions where the government can compulsorily acquire property from a company or individual WITHOUT any obligation to pay appropriate compensation?

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Now, Adam Smith, keep your finger from that b-quote button. Read. Comprehend. Examine the very words you feel like quoting, eg “well” and “badly”, “judiciously” and “injudiciously”, then their context. Don’t translate, don’t presume. You won’t need all that follow-up tripe about statistics or why Gillard sucks.

    Try and make your responses relevant to what you are reading, however much you dislike what you are reading.

    No! Keep your finger from that b-quote button! Abstinence will help you to read.

    If you think a need for tools and money has a rigid logical equivalency to a hand-out, and consequently to socialism, that’s a thinking problem, not a reading problem. I don’t know what you should do about that.

    But I am sure you need to lay off that b-quote button.

    I accept that you had to revert to this nonsense because you are embarrassed that the Howard government, rather than the Rudd or Gillard governments, is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history.

    00

  • #

    He did it. He hit the button. With the inevitable result.

    Maybe he’s paid by the inch, no matter whose inches.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    @ 122

    For a market to operate effectively, people must have confidence in the worth of the assets that they are trading.

    Epic fail ASs because there is a significant (dare I say over 50%) number that have no confidence in the co2 market. That is what we’ve all been saying to you for weeks now. You let on here to your knowledge and your fear here. YOUR MARKET FOR CO2 WILL FAIL for the reason YOU AGREE to: LACK OF CONFIDENCE.

    Pay attention, sir, world wide because the same lack of confidence is shaking your socialist foundation to the core.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Epic fail ASs because there is a significant (dare I say over 50%) number that have no confidence in the co2 market.

    Who are you referring to? I was referring to people that trade the permits. Why would they participate in a market they have no confidence in?

    Why would you buy shares in a company if the government could just take them off of you without paying you the market value for them?

    You let on here to your knowledge and your fear here. YOUR MARKET FOR CO2 WILL FAIL for the reason YOU AGREE to: LACK OF CONFIDENCE.

    When it doesn’t fail will you admit that you were wrong?

    Pay attention, sir, world wide because the same lack of confidence is shaking your socialist foundation to the core.

    I have no socialist foundation. I do not support the Liberal and National parties’ tax and spend socialist approach to cutting carbon emissions.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I have no socialist foundation. I do not support the Liberal and National parties’ tax and spend socialist approach to cutting carbon emissions.

    WTF?

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [WTF?]
    Surely you realise that the Coalition’s climate change policy is effectively socialism?

    They want to take your taxes and hand it over to companies in the hope they will cut their emissions.

    That’s a non-market mechanism that they call “Direct Action”, which ultimately comes down to the belief that politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra can pick and choose carbon abatement projects more effectively than the market.

    If you think politicians are really, really, really good at spending your taxes, by all means support the Coalition’s climate change policy.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    What I support is the notion that there is NO climate “problem”.

    I support cutting off the tax revenues to government as a basic operating principal.

    anything else IS socialism

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    What I support is the notion that there is NO climate “problem”.

    Well you’re out of luck as both Labor and Liberal accept the science and support cutting emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    So luck is the driving force?

    How about astrology…..

    You are so full of your agenda.

    By the way, Austrailia cutting 5% is how much of the global anthropogenic atmospheric co2 input?

    Epic fail again because you know the answer but you’ll never admit it.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    So luck is the driving force?

    LOL! Where did I make that claim! I said that YOU are out of luck, because the consensus in the parliament is that global warming is real and it is caused by human activities, notably putting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    By the way, Austrailia cutting 5% is how much of the global anthropogenic atmospheric co2 input?

    Epic fail again because you know the answer but you’ll never admit it.

    This has nothing to do with the fact that both Labor and the Coalition agree that we should cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    You are an annoyance. You made the “claim” when you suggested that I was “out of luck”. By doing so you demonstrate that you believe in luck.

    You notably aren’t answering my question either. That demonstrates that you have no confidence in your position.

    “Consensus” is argument from authority. You’d do much better if you could actually argue your point without relying on propaganda.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    By the way, Austrailia cutting 5% is how much of the global anthropogenic atmospheric co2 input?

    Epic fail again because you know the answer but you’ll never admit it.

    This has nothing to do with the fact that both Labor and the Coalition agree that we should cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020.

    No it has everything to do with demonstrating the disconnect from reality that Labor and the Coalition have.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh and add this again: Epic fail again because you know the answer but you’ll never admit it.

    00

  • #
    L.J. Ryan

    Dubious at best, is the stated intent of carbon tax/permit. Big government bureaucrats of all stripes are in favor of one thing, increasing control over the citizens. With increased control, comes the ability to delegate benefits or waiver or outright acceptations. Of course these distributions come with price for the mendicant…namely votes and campaign donations.

    Gillard like Obama will steer public monies to high end donors i.e. Solyndra. Gillard like Obama know how these carbon schemes will impact the economy. Gillard like Obama has a goal not of carbon mitigation but income mitigation.

    00

  • #

    blvr:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:13 am
    The comments above are unbelievable. What is wrong with everyone?

    Why are people so opposed to a carbon tax? The economic impact will be minimal

    I see your economic knowledge is as bad as your overall scientific knowledge. As has been stated, a $1600/year tax levied on families (who do not have unlimited borrowing capacities like governments) mean it has to come from somewhere. Most people are not sitting on that amount of money, and the ones that are, invest it to grow business and create more jobs. Removing that from the economy is both a jobs killer and a recessionary move.

    I have to hand it to you – you are consistent in your ignorance.

    00

  • #

    blvr:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    @Truthseeker I’m not qualified to interpret that analysis

    Finally the truth! It is no shame to admit your lack of qualifications. That is why most of us are happy to learn. Some just can’t seem to grasp that concept.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    If Gillard was about to declare herself a dictator, why didn’t she just ignore the High Court judgement that has stopped offshore processing of asylum seekers?

    Again, your ignorance of history is telling. The speaker you quoted was not stating any conspiracies or facts not in evidence. He was expressing concern, and you reply with “do you believe that?”.

    You also seem to think that Hitler declared himself dictator, or was elected to the position. Again both false. he was democratically elected, just like Gillard, to a minority government. He campaigned on issues that had nothing to do with the Holocaust, Anschluss or World war. Just as Gillard campaigned on issues that have nothing to do with her tanking polls.

    That does not mean Gillard is Hitler in drag, but it does mean there are parallels that can be noted. Noting them does not endorse or cast aspersions. It merely sets them side by side for others to view and decide for themselves.

    If Gillard is about to become a dictator, she has a strangely democratic way of going about implementing policies.

    So did Hitler, until he was dictator.

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @Phil I listen to those that are qualified to speak. You are not one of them.
    I already said the $1600 will be offset by tax breaks. You do not read what I say.

    In any case the $1600 is a small price to pay to maintain some semblance of current climate. Or would you rather pay $2,000+ per year once it goes haywire?

    No, leave that for your children.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    In any case the $1600 is a small price to pay to maintain some semblance of current climate.

    How is it possible to have a rational discussion with someone who can state that?

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @Mark what do you mean?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Blvr:
    September 25th, 2011 at 3:58 am
    In any case the $1600 is a small price to pay to maintain some semblance of current climate. Or would you rather pay $2,000+ per year once it goes haywire?

    It has only stopped going haywire for the last 200 years or so. How wiil $1600 prevent things from going back to the past unstable craziness again? If you could prevent events like the great Irish frost from happening again with just a few thousand that is great news. So how exactly will you prevent another negative temperature divergence like the one of the 1730s from happening again with this money? How much would it cost to stop a climate change like what wiped out the Dorset Arctic culture or ended the Viking stay on Greenland. Just imagine not having to burn people framed as witches alive to stop glaciers advancing into European towns anymore. How much would it cost in 10:10 style child sacrifice to have saved the Mayans?

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @siliggy the costs of mitigation are less than the costs of inaction.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Blvr:
    September 25th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    @siliggy the costs of mitigation are less than the costs of inaction.

    How do you intend to mitigate the global cooling?

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Blvr @ 144

    The cost of inaction will be … nothing! Get it? Since doing nothing will cost us nothing any mitigation action will cost more.

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @truthseeker the cost of inaction is that attributable to the negative impacts of climate change. Read Garnaut’s Review or the Stern Report. These costs are massive. Your [about to win the lottery] [or was it "your children will pay for the carbon tax?] ED

    00

  • #
    Blvr

    @Siliggy We will be barely able to [snip] [the rest is just silly ] ED

    00

  • #

    Blvr:
    September 25th, 2011 at 3:58 am
    @Phil I listen to those that are qualified to speak. You are not one of them.

    I am very qualified to speak. It is called the freedom of speech. So your ad hominem is both childish and incorrect. As is your strawman and evasion of the question. You can choose not to LISTEN to anyone who speaks, and you have demonstrated through your ignorance that is your modus operandi, but since you are not dictator for life of the planet earth, you have no right to decide who has a right to speak and who does not.

    In short, you are an incompetant egomaniac who lacks either the inclination or intelligence to learn.

    00

  • #
    chrism

    Nice debate, I notice the trolls are few and far between …scared or just aware that at present we don’t have any real power ?
    : this has all been said before : please let me quote (the collectivists in the meantime can get back to das Kapital etc)

    “did you want to know who is john galt? i am the first man of ability who
    refused to regard it as guilt. i am the first man who would not do pennance
    for my virtues or let them be used as the tools of my destruction. i am the
    first man who would not suffer the martyrdom at the hands of those who
    wished me to perish for the privilege of keeping them alive. i am the first
    man who told them that i did not need them, and until they learned to deal
    with me as traders, giving value for value, they would have to exist without
    me, as i would exist without them; then i would let them learn whose is the
    need and whose is the ability–and if human survival is the standard, whose
    terms would set the way to survive.”

    – john galt

    “You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up
    against — then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful
    gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but
    we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to
    rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack
    down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes
    them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
    for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding
    citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
    that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted –
    and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt.
    Now that’s the system…that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll
    be easier to deal with.”

    – Ayn Rand

    00

  • #

    [...] new Australian legislation will cost Australians $390 pa compared to the EU’s per capita contribution of $1.50 each (over five years!). And Australia is cementing in the laws property right clauses like no [...]

    00