JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



On Carbon Sunday an ode to Gaia

Posted in comments by “Carbon Free”

———————————————-
I sit here in my living room with just a few minutes left before midnight & ‘Carbon Sunday’, now in my dark cold residence, using only a battery powered smart phone to blog, as I start my new low greenhouse gas existence. Already the new evening meal of beans and vegetables is starting to become uncomfortable. I dare not pass wind for fear of adding to the earth’s methane levels, and I have tried not to exhale my CO2 directly into the atmosphere, but rather store it in environmentally friendly plastic bags where it will be released into my new hermetically sealed backyard greenhouse, where plants will convert my CO2 back to pure O2 and stored carbon.

My only sadness today was having all my pets put down. My dogs caused far too much emissions for the planet. Perhaps the vegan diet proved too much for their digestion systems but the thought of any living creature eating meat is far worse. Anyway, they will make good fertiliser food for the greenhouse.

It’s very cold now without power, and my fingers are blue. I’m wondering if my actions today have somehow helped the outside (and inside) temperature of my small eco-house reach just 5 degrees centigrade. But I will now embrace the cold, knowing that in just a few short years it will be scorchingly hot. Whilst I should not look forward to warmer times, I can always read my new Gaia Bible to help keep my soul from drifting.

Also, all my own waste will now be directly recycled. This will probably mean the taste of my food will get progressively worse. But this is the new green way and we must all do our bit. I will think of you Julia when I eat my recycled food, especially when it’s been recycled several times over….

Thank you ‘queen’ Julia for showing me the path to sustainability.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (103 votes cast)
On Carbon Sunday an ode to Gaia, 9.1 out of 10 based on 103 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7fh2j2w

250 comments to On Carbon Sunday an ode to Gaia

  • #
    FrankSW

    And what does the smart phone connect to? How much carbon are you generating on the phone network?

    Switch it off NOW!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Well Frank the carbon tax definitely worked in the Adelaide hills, it got below zero for the first time this winter on Sat night/Sunday morning.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    What makes me think that the warmists wont be following your lead?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    This is perhaps an exaggeration to make a point. But in the days ahead conditions are bound to move in this direction. Everyone should take advantage of the deteriorating situation to foster outrage all across Australia and make it known in Parliament until they’re choking on it.

    Don’t wait for someone else to start it. Start it yourself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Well don’t be so quick to turn on the waterworks, because I could swear the other day I heard news that the father of Gaia just threw CAGW under the bus…

    ‘I made a mistake’: Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was ‘alarmist’ about the impact of climate change – (Daily Mail, MSNBC)
    “Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.”

    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

    Left that revelation a little bit too god damn late to save us, Jimbo.

    But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.

    “I would be a little more cautious — but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.

    Well `aint that some shit.

    Paved with gold, all the way to the green hell.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      He’s 92 years old – so he doesn’t have as long to wait for a warmer climate. Piping hot, I’d reckon- stupid old fart- ooops, what’s the GHG equivalence for that?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      Brilliant Andrew – Quote of the week must be “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    The Government has now introduced a new tax on CO2 and equivalent emissions. But the revenue it raises from this tax is much less that the money it has to borrow (because they are already drowning in debt), to also pay for money the Government spends on:

    - cash give-away to individuals and households to help with the cost of living impact of the carbon tax (in it’s first year only!).

    - Industries to help them cope with the carbon tax and also help them make the same stuff they already make, but in a more expensive ‘low carbon’ way, even though the higher prices they will have to pass on for their increased energy costs ill mean they are no longer able to compete with overseas competitors.

    – subsidies, investments and cash grants to inefficient green energy such as geo-thermal, solar and wind which has already had hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it overseas helping send the US and many European economies broke but without being able to replace more efficient and reliable fossil fuel energy generation.

    – setting up and running the Climate Change Department, and all the other bureaucrats, and the rest of the bunch (academics, researchers, auditors etc) who are on the Climate Change gravy train.

    – The United Nations fund which we are committed to pouring in at least 10% of the Carbon Taxes we raise so they can continue having expensive world wide climate conferences and give away money to developing nations and despotic dictators who have held the development of their nations back.

    So for now the Government will have to borrow yet more money to add to our spiralling debt levels until more businesses can be included in the carbon tax, and the price per ton can be increased to the Treasury predicted $275 per ton (in 2010 dollars), by 2050. This is what will be necessary to meet the emission reduction targets according to the Government’s own Treasury reports.

    Unfortunately as the carbon tax base gets bigger and the carbon tax increases, there will be less businesses who will continue to trade in Australia when they cannot compete with companies overseas which will never have the same level, and compliance of a carbon tax or carbon trading that we will have in Australia under current legislation. So there will be less business tax revenue going to the government.

    So personal taxes will need to go up. But there will be less people able to pay more tax as unemployment will rise as our industry goes broke or moves overseas.

    So the personal tax on the remaining workers, and the company tax on the remaining businesses will need to rise. The interest bill on our continually increasing government debt will rise as will interest rates on mortgages as credit in Australia dries up because of continued Government borrowing.

    So cost of living expenses will continue to escalate because of the rising carbon tax, because of the rising costs of goods and services and because personal taxes will also need to rise.

    But there is no bottomless pit of money the Government can keep dipping into to compensate for the rapidly rising costs of living they have created!

    Remember this was forced on us by Labor and the Greens who have propagated the discredited ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) theory.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But there is no bottomless pit of money the Government can keep dipping into to compensate for the rapidly rising costs of living they have created!

      Actually, there is. It is called “quantitive easing”, and it is very, very, bad.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bulldust

        Expect QEIII either late this year or early next, depending on how quickly Europe crumbles.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          Firstly, to have QEIII then Lizzie, the current monarch, would have to croak. Given her health appears to be very good for someone of her age (compared to her hubby Phil), I’d call that a long shot.

          Secondly, the heir to the throne would have to be (a) female, and (b) named Elizabeth. This might come as a bit of a shock to young Chuck, but then again I hear those plastic surgeons in Thailand can do wonders in relation to SRS.

          or perhaps you were attempting to raise the spectre of WWIII (World War) as a consequence of failing European economies?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Yes I should have said there is no bottomless pit without bad consequences!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Bulldust

      So personal taxes will need to go up. But there will be less people able to pay more tax as unemployment will rise as our industry goes broke or moves overseas.

      What do you mean? Personal taxes are already going up for the second year running due to bracket creep for people earning more than $70-80,000 per year (I forget the exact breakpoint, the spreadsheet is at work). The Government will continue to draw increasing amounts of personal income tax through bracket creep and 99.9% of the electorate is blissfully ignorant of the fact. Bracket creep is, by an order of magnitude, the biggest impact on personal income taxes both last year and this year. I shall be happy to write an article on the concept in case it needs explaining.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      These are the real potentially devastating consequences of this government’s enthusiastic embrace of AGW not how much the introduction of the 1 July carbon tax will financially hurt Australians in the short term. That we have some naive fools in the media assuring us of the minimal impact of the latter seems to be having little effect on the majority of Australian voters who seem to be aware of the the potential destruction of the rich lifestyle we enjoy and understand it in turn is ultimately dependent on our abundant reserves and use of cheap energy fuels.

      My shopping centre conversations tell me that the average Mr./Ms. Aussie don’t have to be highly educated scientists or economists to understand the potential consequence of this mad government’s attack on our real wealth/ great lifestyle driver.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      And can all of this really only be blamed on incompetence?
      Could any mob of Marxist misfits be so incompetent that all of this would happen entirely at random?
      The trouble is that once these incompetents get their free speech banning in place, and the National Blocking Network built, we’ll be eating recycled food in a FEMA camp!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pattoh

    Has anybody heard a politician of any brand make comments on the sociological/economic drivers of the riots in Western Sydney a while back?

    My bet is that there will be a hell of a lot more of the people/”battlers”/”aspirationals” having street parties in the near future.

    Go Julia!!!!!…………….just go.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      This is from the Andrew Bolt blog of 23 June this year:
      “The Gillard Government preaches confidence, prepares for despair:

      SENIOR bureaucrats were warned that 2012 would be a dark year for Australia, as cost-of-living pressures and tensions over housing affordability and indigenous disadvantage increased the risk of social unrest.”


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Has anyone come up against these New Pathways to Well-Being Frameworks the Australian schools are pushing?

    I had been writing about the social and emotional learning covert emphasis in the US and discovered CASEL, the Chicago-based Collaborative to Assess Social and Emotional Learning had been playing an advisory role on the Scoping Study dated November 2008.

    That’s not good. Basically CASEL will try to use the schools to train students’ emotions, values, and attitudes. Instead of a bullying campaign you will end up with students becoming convinced at an emotional level they MUST save Gaia. Gaia has a fever.

    The point is create the kind of normative/affective emphasis through the schools to permanently influence behaviors. Without the child and then the adult even being aware because it is reflexive, unconscious choices.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/hope-for-clever-nation-20120608-201hk.html from less than a month ago means these pushes that cause real economic pain like encouraging paper credentialing without marketable knowledge or skills are counting as improving oz’s well-being.

    This is all part of that moving beyond GDP nonsense the UN agencies, the OECD, and the Center for Policy development are all pushing.

    Beware! It’s not enough to try to get rid of the carbon tax. That’s just visible.

    It’s the invisible international statist measures that are the really toxic policies and practices. They are designed to create permanent dependence on the state or its crony private sector affiliates.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Couldn’t agree more. It’s just the tip of the iceberg.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Twodogs

      O great, now they’re formalizing brainwashing! Fortunately, they can’t change human nature, so they will lose in the end. Unfortunately though, things have to get much worse before they can get better.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    Will the carbon tax do away with climate change? Will it mean no more spring, summer ,autumn or winter as I have watched this climate change for the past seventy years every year without fail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scarface

    And did you notice the slight cooling starting around midnight? Just curious.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d like to alert concerned people to another carbon “bomb”. Climate changed – in 2007, to be exact – though some did not notice, or pretended not to notice. Eastern Australia has undergone massive regrowth, with oceanic winds dominant and abundant rains coinciding with reduced clearing, forestry and development.

    When climate changes again, maybe when the PDO flips back, and westerlies dominate in late-winter/spring, as in the nineties, all that regrowth will be exposed to fire on a national scale.

    It won’t be a new thing, but it’s a hoot to think that when the conflagrations are threatening or occurring, there will be bureaucrats and boffins advising on the carbon emissions from different brands of fire-pumps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Peter Lang explains the cost
    “What the Carbon Tax and ETS will really cost”.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/

    his conclusion:

    The actual costs are likely to be higher than the Treasury estimates and, therefore, higher than stated above. Firstly, realistically the CO2 tax will have no measurable effect on the climate or sea levels, so the benefit will be negligible or nil.

    Secondly, the compliance costs will increase enormously as more and more businesses are included in the scheme (e.g. many small and medium businesses, every farmer, every hospital, school, shopping centre, etc.), and as emitters will eventually be required to measure emissions, not just estimate them.

    Thirdly, the CO2 price will cause deindustrialisation of Australia as some industries that emit CO2 are forced to move to other countries with lower costs of production and weaker environmental laws. Therefore, GDP will be reduced by more than Treasury estimates, but with no reduction in global emissions.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … the CO2 price will cause [the] deindustrialisation of Australia as some industries that emit CO2 are forced to move to other countries …

      It is not just the industries who move overseas, but also the qualified workers in those industries that will have the means and the will to follow the jobs. Already we are seeing significant production (and the associated skill base) moving to South Asia.

      Primary production industries are the only ones with limited options. Secondary and ternary industries are much more mobile.

      So if we extrapolate that situation out (and yes I am aware that extrapolation is a cardinal sin) we arrive at a scenario where Australia becomes a nation of farmers, primary production workers, and a burgeoning public service, with the bulk of the tax base having moved off-shore. That is hardly sustainable.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Come on, there is a skills shortage already in Austrlia.. This is the ALP?Greens way of dealing with it. Kill a percentage of industry.. no more skills shortage. EASY !!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      There are a zillion of these compliant requirements put in place by this illegitimate mob that on the surface appear to be sane, but in fact are ommunist to the core.
      I am the technical manager at a power station. The EEOA (energy efficiency opportunities act) we are obligated to investigate opportunities for energy savings and report to Canberra. This sounds good. This is what we do all the time. Any self respecting business is always hunting for ECONOMICALLY VIABLE ways to reduce what we call “parasitic load”…..the electricity we consume that we could otherwise be selling. However the other day we did some planning based on templates sent out from the High Priests of Gaia. We can expect a visit from a “facilitator” from Canberra to help us in this task. But he isn’t interested in our parasitic loads. The templates are about improving the efficiency of the PROCESS. The efficiency of conversion of natural gas to electricity is established WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IS SPECIFIED FOR CONSTRUCTION! A change to the process can only be achieved by replacing the equipment. Since the equipment specification was established from forward financial projections before the station was built, modifications resulting in a positive net present value is patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, some choirboy from the Church of Climate Change in Canberra is going to come and facilitate our ruminations on why his (or her) idiotic concepts are complete malarkey. Time is money. This will show up in the price of electricity.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        Rod I know your units are somewhat more exotic than an old steam engine, but surely there is some way of getting some use out of these Canberra types, by feeding then to the furnace.

        If none of them ever return to Canberra, do you think they would notice? How long would it take for them to run out of this new furnace feed stock do you think, if you can devise a suitable method of use?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Manfred

    If I’m not mistaken mosomoso, the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best will advise that the increased risk and incidence of forest fires is caused by CAGW. An irony appears that sustainable practices like selective logging are often banned – like the west coast of NZ.

    Be prepared for advisories of this nature to emanate from the exotic subsidised, well insulated ivory towers of the new green Bourgeoisie that will preside over the excruciating, dull, pointless, taxed world Jo describes.

    If it indeed comes to a vision Jo describes, I believe that in reality such a period cannot endure. Disregarding the fundamentals of human nature and those of the human spirit will, like previous incarnations of totalitarianism, be consigned to the dust bin of history.

    It’s impossible to keep a good thing down no matter how ‘compelling’ the vision may be!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      An irony appears that sustainable practices like selective logging are often banned – like the west coast of NZ.

      It is hard to draw comparisons between Australia forests and New Zealand forests. The west coast of New Zealand has “significant” levels of rainfall, compared to Australia, so the need for selective logging for safety reasons is not a consideration. Also the tree species are different. New Zealand trees don’t explode in the way that Australian ones do.

      And I always thought that fire was a natural and critical component in the complex Australian ecology?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “trees don’t explode in the way that Australian ones do.”

        I know what you are trying to say, but I have NEVER seen a tree explode (except when using a couple of sticks of TNT, now that WAS fun :-) .

        The heat from the fire increases the amount of volatile gases given off by gum trees. It is these gases that “explode”, not the tree.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Manfred

        ‘Hard’ as it might be to ‘draw comparisons’ given trans-Tasman ecological niche differences, the cessation of logging activities, including the cessation of ‘sustainable’ logging or ‘clearing’ practices in native forests in an economically bereft region was considered desirable. Her answer to the folk of the West Coast, an appeasement cheque. Score greens 1, sustainable living 0. The Comrade is now fittingly, an ‘administrator’ at the UNDP. (Comrade Clark signed up NZ to the Kyoto Protocol amidst limited great rejoicing and self-adulation).

        Today, NZ MSM proclaimed a bright day for Australia as ‘Australia institutes the CO2 tax, meeting their international obligations’. It sounds very much like a stage setting, conditioning exercise for the Shaky Isles.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ian George

    Scarface
    It looks as if Casino, NSW, has had its equal coldest max av temp for June on record (ie 112 years). Started already.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Typical useless news media here in NZ. They never reported that Climategate II had occurred, and as yet have not reported that the ‘There’ll be no carbon tax in any government I lead’ tax comes into force today. Instead, and par for the course here the red-headed pointy-nosed person of little credibility is reported:

    “As well as matters of state, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard have had a chat about their hairstyles.”

    The inanity of it all takes my breath away.

    Any reporter with any nous at all could at least plagiarise what Jaymez said above for some enlightenment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spartacusisfree

    Carbon is a Polluuutant……


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Extraordinary isn’t it.
    Former generations used to believe some dumb things, but this is the dumbest. Carbon-based life form demonises carbon. I wish they would all go decarbonise themselves.
    Ok, it leaves a dirty puddle of water on the ground with a mineral scum, but that’s easily mopped up.
    Best solution would be to follow Gandhi’s example when he walked across India to make salt, striking a blow against the salt tax.
    There is astonishment around the world that Australia actually has a law that makes unjustified attribution of a price increase to the carbon tax a criminal offence.
    Everyone who has to set a price for the goods and services they supply will be affected sooner or later.
    Maybe start putting up the Galileo Movement posters now? Safety in numbers?
    In Gandhi’s time they managed to put 60,000 people in jail.
    ACCC already salivating at the prospect of busting people.
    Australian courts having difficulty keeping up.
    Anyone know what the vacancy rate is for correctional accommodation ?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I remember people ranting years ago that those lefties were out of control and that TAX was their solution to every problem.
      I would, only half jokingly, say that they would tax us for breathing if they got a change.
      Yeah right.
      Everybody had a good laugh.

      Don’t hear anybody laughing now….


      Report this

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I would recommend a sign that says the following.

      By Law, I am unable to tell you how much my prices have gone up due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax, If I do, I risk $1 million dollar fines. You will have to guess how much of the price increase is due to the Carbon Tax”.

      On every shop window.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        ExWarmist:

        By Law, I am unable to tell you how much my prices have gone up due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax, If I do, I risk $1 million dollar fines. You will have to guess how much of the price increase is due to the Carbon Tax.

        Thanks. I like that one, and will add it to my collection, along with:

        “I neither confirm nor deny that this price rise is a consequence of the Carbon Tax.”

        Sign on the Coke machine at a local wreckers yard:
        “Price includes Carbon Tax”
        and underneath:
        (May contain up to 5 times the volume of the drink in compressed carbon dioxide)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Simpler would be a sign or tag that read:

        “The price of this item has increased $XX.00.
        I am not allowed to tell you why”.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Simple: “Prices have had to rise because of inflation caused by Federal Government policies”.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Earth shattering news from New Zealand!

    Climate change slow, but real phenomenon
    Well duh, who would have known?

    It’s understandable people are confused by scientists telling us the world is heating up and to prepare for the worst, only to then be told August was the coldest on record.
    However, there is a huge difference between what is gradually happening over a century, and the usual weather we’ll continue to receive over the next few decades.

    In other words..Yes we know guys it isn’t warming YET but it will happen, honestly.
    No mention of the fact that it hasn’t been warming for the past decade.
    No mention of the fact that NON of the IPCC scary predictions have come through.
    No mention of the fact that (By looking at the facts) there is no connection between rising CO2 levels and climate change.

    Nope.
    But honestly guys, it will happen.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/weather/news/article.cfm?c_id=10&objectid=10816550


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Manfred

      I have written on several occasions both to the ridiculously titled ‘Minister of Climate Change’ and to the reporters at TV/Radio NZ, attaching some very informative peer reviewed literature derived from the real world.

      In so doing, it is clear that CAGW is fait accompli as are the official ‘solutions’. Corrections to this top down view of the world can only come from the ground up.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    scott

    Definately a little chilly today…. and they said it wouldnt work!!!! good job Julia.. why didnt we think of this earlier….

    (mind you which temperature is it we are going for exactly?)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Twodogs

      How funny is that? I was in the blue mountains yesterday and it was utterly, bitterly cold due to the chill factor. And there was Swannie on tv, disingenuously claiming how the frozen chook he was holding had not risen in price overnight.

      Swannie holding a plucked chook….priceless!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    I could only watch 10 mins of Insiders.

    The leftie love in was all for the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, and it made me sick!!

    What a farce!

    God help us…..


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      The supporters of the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax should all do their bit for their GAIA GOD……….

      BY STOPPING BREATHING OUT THEIR EVIL POLLUTION,

      IE. HOLD THEIR BREATHS!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    JK

    This article on Stuff (who made that name up…sigh) tells about Kiwis having trouble staying out of debt.
    The increase is mainly because of the higher demands of especially housing.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7200255/Price-of-progress-hurts-Kiwis

    Combine that with the way Helen Clark decided for the UN that we (the people living in the Western countries) don’t need more cars or televisions or not even a life, as I interpret her words and we see most likely the reasons behind the current policies plaguing our countries.

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/paul-wilson/un-official-western-nations-dont-need-more-cars-more-tv-whatever

    These people have become so power-hungry that they don’t even bat an eye lid when deciding that all money we earn should rightfully go to them because we don’t need it anymore….
    Their attitude and the associated juicy carrot bribes they use to buy politicians in certain position of power made Julia cause all this mayhem in Australia, it seems.
    Destroy the Western world, claim that it is for the benefit of the “developing” world but syphon the money away into the pockets of a demented but extremely powerful organization that employs horrible dictators like Mugabe as tourism ambassadors…
    How can we stop them???


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      Julia Gillard is following the footsteps of Helen Clark. These witches do not give a toss what their mandate is. What they follow is the career path. And all career paths lead to the UN. Hence, carbon tax for NZ, carbon tax for Australia. This is the New Groupthink.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peredur

    And we still do not know what criteria define the Government’s intended climate, or how we should distinguish that climate from the evolving climate have.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Keep in mind that today is just the tip of the iceberg. Cleverly structured by the Government not to introduce it all in one hit, this gives them the opportunity to say that it won’t be all that bad.

    How they do this is to:

    1. Only name the less than 300 entities on this first list, and (if it’s still in place) with the introduction of the ETS, then every entity with an obligation will be on the list.

    2. Start with the original price of $23, rising each year until the introduction of the ETS, and keep in mind they have a floor price of $15, so if that cost elsewhere in the World stays as low as it is currently, then the Government will always get that floor price.

    3. At the start, large emitting entities will be given a percentage of credits, so, only able to pass on what they actually have to purchase, that increase will be low. Each year until the introduction of the ETS, less credits will be given away, and because of that, the price people pay will increase, because, after all, this is a Tax on consumers, and we will all pay, as the emitting entity is just the last step before the money is passed back to Government.

    With respect to CO2, we all know that the largest emitting entities are the electrical power providers, the top 4 and 14 of the top 20 emitting entities. Each year as the price rises and less credits are given away, then electricity prices will increase.

    So, today when you see those Labor politicians all saying that the sky hasn’t fallen in, and we will all see that we can live with this, be very aware that this ….. today ….. is just the beginning. The price rise you see in your next electricity account may only rise by 2.5 to 3.2 (and some slightly more)the same will apply next July1, the next Jul 1 following that, and the next July 1 following that.

    That 3.2 cents rise per KWH unit cost of electricity may not seem much so look at your recent bill where it says consumption, measured in KWH. Multiply that by the 3.2 cents and there’s your increase. Then add on the GST.

    Note how Greg Combet mentioned that the rise will be from $3.60 per week, and once you hear the price, that word ‘from’ is not heard, that ‘from’ being the lowest price, because at 3.2 cents per KWH, that works out to a daily consumption of around 16/17KWH, and work out your own daily average, and you’ll see it’s closer to 25 to 30KWH per day. So at that 30KWH, the increase to your 90 day account will be around $90 and then add on the GST, so if you are an average consumer, then your next electricity account will be $100 more expensive, and for individual consumers, you can work each bill out for yourself.

    Same increase next year, and the year after, and the year after.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I wonder if the beer companies will be hit by this tax as they are producers of CO2.

    Now that could really upset Aussies. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Delivering all that “directly recycled” food to Parliament might get the point across.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The sting in the tail is the CO2 equivalence, and here you may see why some entities have made it onto that list of less than 300 entities.

    The supply of Natural Gas to homes connected to town gas, or have bottled gas, will also see price increases, so those of you who have gas and electricity will have a double hit, probably around a similar increase as for electricity, although some say it could be as high as 40%.

    The same applies to all places that have gas connected, restaurants, hospitals etc,

    Then there’s the equivalence gases, and as I have linked to that image often, some of those gases have huge multipliers, and that’s the base CO2 cost of $23 multiplied by the number in the legisaltion.

    While some of you think that this is just dealing with refrigerant gases, there are quite literally, a plethora of uses for those gases, and some are used extensively in Medical procedures, hence you will see hospitals on that list of less than 300 entities. Here, with these gases, note how Greg Combet cleverly mentions that up to 95% of their credits will be given to them for some of these gases, lowering the Carbon price (sic) to around a dollar, but when you see multipliers in the thousands and many thousands, then it’s easy to see how the cost mounts, and here, keep in mind the number of credits given away decreases each year, hence the price rises, and with those multipliers, some rises will quite literally be exponential.

    So, while some say that the Government data shows very little increase, one site showing that a small cost will be added to the cost to the importation of the gas for the importer, that is on top of what he is paying for the gas already. The importer then sells the gas to the entity that stores it, at the cost multiplied by the multiplier in the legislation. That entity then onsells the gas as required to the entity that has to use it, eg, refrigeration company or the like, who then sell it to the retailer, who then sell the end product to the consumer. At each step, that cost and multiplier come into play as each of those passes on his obligation, recovering it from the next person, so it’s not double dipping here. Each will apply their profit margin, and each will apply their GST impost as well.

    When the ETS comes in, every gas will be at its full price and multiplier, so again, those costs rise with each year.

    Note also that when the ETS comes into play, some of those gases will then have slide on effects specifically into farming and grazing communities and here I will just mention Nitrous Oxide with its multiplier of 310 or at the current base rate of $23, that means $7130 per tonne. Used extensively in medical and dental procedures, I can see dentists especially ceasing their use of it altogether. It also comes into play for farming and grazing, as it is emitted by cows, and also in land usage, so the price of fertiliser will increase dramatically, both at the bulk use level for crops, and also at the home use of fertilisers as well.

    While currently, farming and grazing are not on the agenda, with the introduction of the ETS, then it will come into play, as all emissions will be costed, and you can’t just have one rule for some and not for others.

    So, while the current emphasis is on CO2 emissions, you can see that this list of equivalent gases in that legislation is also a (monumentally) huge money generator.

    This Tax is iniquitous on so many levels, it now becomes easy to see how much money this will make for any Government that keeps it in place.

    I’m dumbfounded that all of this is not ‘out there’ in common knowledge.

    This tax is not designed to lower emissions. It’s designed specifically to raise enormous amounts of money, and it’s not the so called dirty polluters who pay. It’s you and me.

    These people who are doing this to us, must know what it means, and they use deception at every level so that people will not actually go looking for themselves, and after all, who’s going to believe a totally insignificant someone like me, a patently obvious scaremonger, when those pure as the driven snow Government Ministers say that we can all live with this and it will really be a case of “what was the problem?”

    CO2 Equivalence Chart

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      I despair at the sneaky, filthy lying tactics they are using Tony.

      The fact that our own PM is selling us down the toilet says a lot about ALP Values.

      I believe the rate of the Carbon Tax is directly proportional to the level of steam coming out of everyones ears…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bulldust

      The biggest joke of all is that the Government’s own modelling shows that CO2 emissions won’t go down in Australia… we will simply end up buying shonky emission permits from overseas. That’s even if you believe the modelling, but the eonomic models are as shonky as the climate models … posibly worse. The Government has no idea what impact this tax will ultimately have on the economy, and neither do any of the economists – it’s simply too complex to model without making assumptions that render any output pure fiction.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Bulldust says:

        We will simply end up buying shonky emission permits from overseas.

        So, here’s a question for you all.

        Australia has priced its emissions at the base $23 per Tonne, rising each year for the next three years and then moving across to an ETS.

        The Base price is $15, but that’s only for the ETS at the start of Year 4. From now until then, the price is set in concrete at that rising amount.

        The Legislation specifically states that Overseas purchased credits are of lesser value than Australian credits, so they are already reduced by a certain percentage, I suppose the emphasis here being to encourage the Trading (not for four years yet though) of Australian Credits.

        However, buying overseas credits can start from right now.

        So, you tell me how many Companies are going to purchase overseas credits.

        The credit price is set at the Country of origin, and some Countries have that carbon price (sic) set as low as $4 to $6. So a Company sinks its own money into an (approved) overseas venture, and for that they get an amount of Credits. Those credits are now worth even less, as per the Legislation, so to equal just ONE Australian credit, then they will need anything up to 8 of those overseas Credits, and keep in mind that a typical large scale coal fired power plant will need tens or hundreds of thousands with their emissions up around 15 to 20 million tonnes of CO2.

        Each purchase of those overseas credits will have to be meticulously recorded as to date, cost, how many, amount invested etc, so it’s not just a matter of adding up credits.

        Then, at the end of the year, at surrender time, all those credits will be returned, or you can keep any extra you have, however, they lose value with each year they are kept, so in the event of trading they will not be valued at the current Australian price, so to trade them for Australian money, the owner will get a significantly lesser amount for those offshore credits, and again record keeping ensures those offshore credits can only be traded for their offshore value minus the percentage in the legislation.

        Then when the ETS comes in, with its set base price of $15, if the fundament falls out of the Australian Carbon market (sic) then you can trade all you want at whatever price, again meticulously detailed as to cost, time of purchase etc, only at surrender time, you have to make up the money to that Base price if the credits you purchased during trading are of a lesser value.

        It’s not Credit based, but money based.

        I wonder how many Companies will be sinking great wads of their own money in overseas green UN approved ventures to get Credits which will only be worth a fifth of their homegrown value.

        If the bottom falls out of the market, there will be no trading whatsoever because of that floor price of $15.

        Then, when the ETS comes in the entities Cap gets lowered each year, hence the very real probability of Companies having to pay a fortune on top of their already purchased credits. Keep in mind, if any entity exceeds its set emissions level, they have to purchase make up credits at the base price, no matter how low the real price is. On top of that they pay a fine equal to 1.5 times the amount they exceed their limit, also at that floor rate, and then on top of that, their already lowered limit for the following year is lowered again by the amount of their excess. It’s a huge scam, and there’s no other word for it.

        This has nothing whatsoever to do with actually lowering emissions. It’s just about raising tremendous amounts of money, and when providers just pass on the costs to consumers, we are the ones who pay.

        Then, when bean counters say it’s uneconomical to go on, power plants will close. Enter what the legislation artfully calls ‘Security of Supply’, nothing more than Government bailouts. I dread the day any large scale plant has to close down because of this, and then knocks back the bailout, saying it’s not worth it, because all it ensures is a continuation of the Government gouging I have detailed above.

        The same applies across the board, not just for CO2 emissions, but for all those 23 gases.

        I’m willing to bet you won’t hear this from Gregory Ivan.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Perhaps the intent of the scheme is that the “polluters” go out of business.

          At least that seems to be the risk scenario if they are unable to adapt and retain commercial viability.

          The net effect on the economy of the top 500 entities going out of business is likely to be catastrophic beyond imagining.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            As you say, but bear in mind that the “big polluters” include Universities, major hospitals and water supply entities.

            Being hotbeds of greenies the Universities assume that they will be bailed out by the Government…which won’t be able to afford other payouts.

            So either the public will be given the choice of no electricity, no gas, no water either, and not getting sick, or the Universities will be defunded. I wonder which the politicians will choose, and equally whether those who think they are immune to the carbon tax have really thought it through.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Geoff Dawson

    Minor problem,when I click on the agree or disagree Icons at the bottom of any comments.
    (a) It doesn’t register.
    (b) It then scrolls back to the beginning of the article.

    Whose computers have this glitch,mine only or is it more common.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Sorry Geoff, the Thumbs up and Down is still malfunctioning. It’s not just you. Sigh. :-( Jo


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        It would seem I am now the only commenter with the ability to upvote or downvote comments.

        I assure the Republic that I will relinquish these formidable emergency powers as soon as this crisis is over. :)

        I have emailed my suggestion for a possible code fix to Jo.

        —–

        Ahem, no Andrew. I can return the favour with a thumbs up, but I had to put you in moderation to do it. :-( — Jo


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Looking forward to this solution Andrew.

          We need the thumb guidance system, primitive as it is, to keep us headed in the right direction.

          :)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Has the debate around here been more diverse and vigorous since voting was disabled?

            I suspect too many people look at a comment’s tally to “see if it is worth reading” instead of thinking for themselves. When they do not have this mental crutch to tell them what their sheepish opinion should be, they actually have to read the comments and understand them. Having understood it they may ask intelligent questions if they don’t like the comment, or point out exactly why the comment is good.

            It also means lurkers can no longer silently place their upvotes, they actually have to become producers in the commentary economy before they can participate in the implicit karma economy.

            On the other hand, a bunch of “me too”s are a waste of space. It’s been an interesting experiment.

            I am really not sure if the comment ratings should be fixed at all. I’d leave it up to the crowd to judge if the quality of discourse has been better or worse since voting was disabled, though ultimately it’s Jo’s decision.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Andrew,

            Interesting points .

            My own use of thumbs has been to give me feedback on whether I am headed in the right direction, do other people relate to what I’m saying or is it just junk.

            As for content, I read what is of personal use or interest to me; obviously my tastes and area of expertise are not shared by everyone so thumb tallies are not really useful there.

            There have been many cases where the warmer swarm has been through and given thumbs down to comments that annoy them but these attacks are pretty obvious and the price this blogg pays for having good open discussion with good feedback.

            it’d be interesting to hear what opinion others have about the thumbs

            :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I think that thumbs are very good – but they should be opposable.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Are you talking about a 4 to 1 ratio there RW?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            KK,
            I see what you are saying.
            Yes they are useful as indicators of the product of (clarity * ethical * factual * humour) but when you get nothing you don’t know which of those 4 factors was the bottleneck in the herd’s approval.

            In my own experience if I say something that is correct and I get downvoted for it then that tells me I am on the right track. It is just like the psychologists say: we don’t like being right, we like believing we are right. The number of downvotes is a sign of how many people have been “corrected”. So success = upvotes + downvotes…. as long as ALL the facts are on on your side!

            I think you have convinced me the thumbs are overall a good idea, and I can’t save people from their own laziness anyway so why bother.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Australia starts it’s Carbon Tax while (most of) the rest of the world moves to Coal.

    Briefly…

    According to data from the just-released BP Statistical Review, from 2001 through 2011, global consumption of coal rose an astonishing 56%. Using the energy unit Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), global coal consumption rose 1,343 Mtoe, from 2,381 to 3,724 Mtoe. And this trend shows no sign of slowing down.

    REF: Coal Juggernaut


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Her hair would not look nearly so red when it is wet, so there is nothing lost in going for B&W.

      Of course since nearly every photojournalist out there went digital 10 years ago, this is just a Photoshop filter on what will certainly be a colour original. So in the heat of the moment there is no need to waste time swapping cameras, spend those precious extra moments framing the perfect composition…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Spoiler Alert.

      Consensus at my house is go with the high contrast colour, you can always remove the colour later if you like.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      MV I went with the Black and White option as it gives better resolution and adds to the timelessness of the shot :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I would turn around and shoot something more interesting. I’d also have not a jot of guilt while ignoring her.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MudCrab

    I’ve noticed a few people on Facebook making posts like ‘Gee, the sky HASN’T fallen in!! Looks like Rabbit was lying about how bad this Carbon Tax is!’

    Golly!!! 8 hours of Carbon Tax! It doesn’t hurt and gee now I think I will vote Labor next election after all!!

    Wonderful logic. I just had one cigarette and didn’t die! Looks like all those health warnings are rubbish!! I also haven’t eaten since breakfast and haven’t starved to death yet. Maybe I can now stop buying food?

    Gillard was right about one thing though. History will remember who voted to pass the Carbon Tax. If Gillard is REALLY lucky history might be so pissed off at the carbon tax it might never mention all her other failures.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      These are the future leaders of our country.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MadJak

      Mudcrab,

      I think it’s great that you care enough for the severely moronic by being their friends on facebook. I too get frustrated with seeing people discriminate against people with obvious intellectual disabilities.

      Remember, for some of them, being your friend is the only link they have with someone with enough intelligence to care for themselves. This link is incredibly important.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eva Smith

    Finally in Australia carbon has been priced just like Tony wanted via something as simple as a tax … Sky hasn’t fallen , Whyalla still on map .. Tony lied yet again ..

    Enjoy what you are doing for a cleaner energy Australia …

    And Mud Crab if you really think smoking does no harm just keep puffing away just the same as the naysayers on pricing carbon .. but you can 100% guarantee those @#$%^&! wont be around when it all hits the fan..

    The Selfish Funded retirees , baby boomers are only caring about themselves not what they leave behind for other generations


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Col

    Get ready for 2013, get angry,organize ,write ,plan.

    Extirpate these parasites from office , and include all the byzantine committees,bureaucracies and poison pill regulations.

    Could the ALP face annihilation? Here’s working on it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Also I was just wondering if anyone might help me out here.

    I’ve listened to the TV ads and read the mailouts.

    They all say we receive a bonus (and here remember I’m a pensioner already) and people receive tax breaks etc etc. However with the compensation for those not on those tax cuts, have you noticed that the ads all say that the fortnightly compensation kicks in in March next year and goes until ‘early’ 2014.

    Umm, is that the end of the compensation then?

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      Our family received ABSOLUTELY NOTHING………


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MadJak

      My family too must be one of the Derdy Pulluders too, because we get nothing other than increased bills.

      Maybe I should start up a trust and dodge some tax? Nah, I’ll just let the big boys burn without as much of my skillsets.

      If the purpose was to demotivate single income households, then they have succeeded. Alternative economy, here we come.

      F*(k em all I say.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      However with the compensation for those not on those tax cuts, have you noticed that the ads all say that the fortnightly compensation kicks in in March next year and goes until ‘early’ 2014.

      Because after that point you won’t get separate payments, instead your regular pension payment will have an additional component based on the revenue from the permits which will be subject to change based on the trading price.

      Of course the money to do this is coming directly from the sale of carbon permits, so without the carbon price, these increases won’t happen.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      My family gets zip. Squat. Bugger all. In fact, an increase in personal income tax, power and gas up 20% as of July 1, and who knows what for groceries, etc.

      Liars… I’ve already written to my local Labor MP – a good chap who I voted for.

      I suggest as many as possible do the same, along the lines of “You might be decent and principled and I’d normally vote for you, but not now.”

      I’ve done the numbers, with the lower feed-in tariff, the return on investment for putting solar power in is about 16% PA, assuming a system that cuts my power bill in half. I don’t like the technology, but here comes the sun… I can’t get the return on investment anywhere else. Any feed-in tariff payments back come as a bonus that just makes that ROI even higher.

      Now all I need is a way of getting natural gas from sunlight. Oh… perhaps I can get that from chasing moonbeams.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        It is impossible for you to pay more income tax unless you will be earning more money.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Apologies for feeding the troll (Adam Smith), but everyone will be paying more for everyone else’s carbon tax. So we will be paying more tax without earning more money.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Bungalow Bill

      Hi Tony,

      I want to respond to your post last Friday.

      Is there anywhere I can contact you directly?

      Cheers!!!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Tony,

    I have not gone through the legislation in detail – not my job, and not part of my broad range of skills ;-)

    But, from what I have heard, in the political milieu here; the basic principle is to give people compensation first, and then slowly ramp up the tax while slowly reducing the level of compensation. This is the theoretical principle of boiling a frog.

    If this is correct, it means that the ALP will look great for the next twelve months, because suddenly people appear to be better off. The downside will come slowly, and the majority of people will simply adjust their standard of living, bit by bit, without noticing.

    Fine, so what significant political event occurs in the next twelve months, that could take advantage of this … ?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Umm. could it start with the letter E and end with the letter lection?

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      But, from what I have heard, in the political milieu here; the basic principle is to give people compensation first, and then slowly ramp up the tax while slowly reducing the level of compensation. This is the theoretical principle of boiling a frog

      Not true. The indexation of fixed payments, i.e. pensions, is tied to the carbon price. The higher the price the more money gets sent to the payment system.

      But the three one off payments won’t be withdrawn, because they are based on the fixed price period where the government can more accurately estimate the revenue. After that point, it depends on the market price of permits. If the permit price increases, then more money gets directed to indexing payments like pensions, newstart, Youth Allowance, AuStudy etc

      This is clear if you read the legislation.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Terry R

    I’m not going to be negative about this. For every dark cloud there has to be a silver lining. Well this Carbon Tax has been a Greens based initiative. The people smuggling trade has been insired by Green Policys. I know ! I should get into people smuggling, it’s booming at the moment and I can then boast that I’m taking part in the new “Green Economy”! Geeze I might even make Australian of the Year!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      I’m not going to be negative about this. For every dark cloud there has to be a silver lining. Well this Carbon Tax has been a Greens based initiative.

      I don’t know how you can say this is a Greens initiative when at various stages all parties, Green, Labor, Liberal, National have gone to elections proposing a carbon price of some sort.

      Tony Abbott will be the last Liberal / Coalition leader to reject pricing carbon pollution. In fact, he is the only living Liberal leader who opposes carbon pricing, but of course he was for it before he was against it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Tony Abbott will be the last Liberal / Coalition leader to reject pricing carbon pollution.

        Tell me Adam, if carbon is the pollutant, how come we aren’t “pricing” (taxing) carbon – diamonds, graphite, coal and soot, and instead we’re taxing air?

        And if the answer is because we are “pricing” (taxing) a component of air – CO2 – that has a component of carbon, then why aren’t we “pricing” (taxing) everything else that has a component of carbon – that is, every living thing on the planet, plus some of the dead stuff too – like limestone?

        But perhaps most of all, perhaps you could explain why people like you need to resort to the totally underhand, not to mention completely unscientific, misleading use of the term “carbon” pollution, when you are, in fact, referring to carbon dioxide.

        And maybe you can finish off by directing us to some legislation or regulation that defines carbon as a pollutant?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Bob Massey

        AS. Yes but one person in particular said she would not introduce a Carbon Tax …seems you don’t mind liars or charlatans if it suits your agenda !!


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    rukidding

    Gee 20C not a cloud in the sky no rain for a week the CO2 tax is working already but we could be in the middle of a drought. (sarc/off)
    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    We don’t seem to hear much these days why we are doing this that is to stop us emitting CO2
    So why would we use less energy if we are being compensated for it and wage rises attached to the CPI will take care of the rest.
    Maybe it should be called the Claytons Tax.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      We don’t seem to hear much these days why we are doing this that is to stop us emitting CO2
      So why would we use less energy if we are being compensated for it and wage rises attached to the CPI will take care of the rest.
      Maybe it should be called the Claytons Tax.

      I’m confused! Opponents to the carbon tax keep saying that it will ruin the economy and nothing will be affordable anymore, but now you are pointing out that it won’t be a big deal?

      The fact is a tax is being placed on CO2 and being taken off things like income. That’s a win win scenario because I don’t own any CO2 emitting power stations so I don’t have a CO2 liability.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        The fact is a tax is being placed on CO2

        Make up your mind Adam Smith.
        At comment 33.1 you claimed we were “pricing” carbon pollution.
        Now you are saying we are “taxing” carbon dioxide?

        Which is to be – carbon or carbon dioxide?
        And whichever, are we “pricing” it or “taxing” it?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          It is on Carbon Dioxide equivalent.

          All these accounting rules were introduced by John Howard’s government, they aren’t anything new.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          • #
            Adam Smith

            It is Doctor Who!

            Tony.

            Just stick to the issues instead of reverting to abuse.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            What’s a “carbon dioxide equivalent” got to do with “carbon pollution”?
            What’s the “carbon pollution” equivalent of methane gas expressed in diamonds?

            And how and when and under what circumstances does a “price” become a “tax”?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Tony,

            Just stick to the issues instead of reverting to abuse.

            Don’t you just love it Tony – at least a half a dozen posts with at least a dozen replies, and not one of them addressed, just the typical slithering and sliding around and avoidance, and when that fails, just change the subject.

            Yes, it most certainly is the return of Team Smith.

            That was obvious when his very second post was to bitch about his “freedom of speech” on a private website.

            I’ve got a gut feeling “Stephen Frost” may be part of the “Team Smith” brigade.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        That’s a win win scenario because I don’t own any CO2 emitting power stations so I don’t have a CO2 liability.

        Perhaps not, but you use electricity that comes from a CO2 emitting power station, and they are going to pass the cost onto you, so you are going to pay for it with your power bill.

        You almost certainly buy things (food, clothes, furniture, appliances etc).
        These come from people called “retailers” who stock these items in places called “shops”.

        These retailers also happen to use electricity for lighting, refrigeration, air conditioning etc in their shops, that comes from CO2 emitting power stations, and they will have costs that are going to be passed onto you.

        Some of the things you buy from the “retailers” in those places called “shops” are made here in Australia by “producers”. The “producers” who make these things do so in “factories”, and they use electricity as well. They get the electricity from CO2 emitting power stations, and they too, will have no choice other than to pass their increased costs onto you.

        So while it’s true you don’t own a CO2 emitting power station, you most certainly do have a CO2 (cost) liability.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Perhaps not, but you use electricity that comes from a CO2 emitting power station, and they are going to pass the cost onto you, so you are going to pay for it with your power bill.

          True, but I am getting income tax cuts to cover the cost increase, so it won’t make a difference to me. Oh, but I do have another incentive to use less power if I can.

          You almost certainly buy things (food, clothes, furniture, appliances etc).
          These come from people called “retailers” who stock these items in places called “shops”.

          True, but the average cost increase there is going to be $1 a week for the average household. I’m going to get income tax cuts that will cover that.

          Some of the things you buy from the “retailers” in those places called “shops” are made here in Australia by “producers”. The “producers” who make these things do so in “factories”, and they use electricity as well. They get the electricity from CO2 emitting power stations, and they too, will have no choice other than to pass their increased costs onto you.

          Who are you quoting? You keep quoting words but you haven’t provided any references.

          So while it’s true you don’t own a CO2 emitting power station, you most certainly do have a CO2 (cost) liability.

          No I don’t have a liability. Only companies that have to buy carbon permits have a liability. You are using the term “liability” in a very misleading way.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I don’t own any CO2 emitting power stations so I don’t have a CO2 liability.

        But the power from the CO2 emitting power stations that you don’t own will be supplying power to food processing plants, and the power companies will probably want to pass on at least some of the cost of this tax within the power tariff structure. So we can expect to see food production costs go up, with an increase in wholesale food prices. Oh, and we shouldn’t forget that profit margins are usually expressed as a percentage of total costs, so those margins will also add a small amount to the selling price.

        And then the food has to be distributed throughout the country, and held in cool storage until it is ready for retail distribution, and those cool stores also use electricity, the price of which will have gone up. So like the the food processors, the distributers will also increase their prices to cover the costs, plus of course, their margin.

        And then of course, we have the retailers, who also have to power cold storage, chiller bins, freezers, lighting, heating, checkout, security, etc. all of which needs electricity, and so the retailer is facing larger power bills, but the cost of their merchandise has also increased because of increased upstream costs. All of this will be passed on to the customer, plus of course, the retailers percentage margin.

        So you may not have a tax liability for CO2, but you will be the person at the end of the line who ends up paying. And don’t forget that GST is also added to the net price, so the dollar amount of any non-exempt goods will also go up as GST is paid on the accumulated carbon tax.

        Follow the supply chain, do the math, and you decide if people will be better or worse off.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Ah yes, Rereke,

          But all of that is going to is only going to cost “a dollar a week” according to Team Smith (without citing any of the references they demand from everybody else).

          .
          Rereke, Tony and the other regulars:

          Now that we have established beyond doubt that we are dealing with Team Smith, and we know from the outset they will just argue around in circles without ever answering any issue, why don’t we just all agree henceforth ignore the pricks?

          We know we’ll never get a direct answer or a straight debate. They are only here to disrupt and hijack the threads.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Now that we have established beyond doubt that we are dealing with Team Smith, and we know from the outset they will just argue around in circles without ever answering any issue, why don’t we just all agree henceforth ignore the pricks?

            Just stick to debating the issues rather than reverting to abuse.

            It is obvious to me that you don’t believe your own argument when you are more interested in petty abuse rather than discussing the topic at hand.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Ah, now I realise …

            That is why we need the thumbs – it is so we can collectively give the finger :-)


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          But the power from the CO2 emitting power stations that you don’t own will be supplying power to food processing plants, and the power companies will probably want to pass on at least some of the cost of this tax within the power tariff structure. So we can expect to see food production costs go up, with an increase in wholesale food prices. Oh, and we shouldn’t forget that profit margins are usually expressed as a percentage of total costs, so those margins will also add a small amount to the selling price.

          But you are making one critical mistake. The main cost input of food processing plants isn’t electricity, it is food. Will there be a cost increase due to increased energy prices? YES, but it is a relatively small component of their total cost structure which includes other things like the actual food inputs that they process, and the cost of labour, and the cost of rent (if they don’t own the factory).

          And then the food has to be distributed throughout the country, and held in cool storage until it is ready for retail distribution, and those cool stores also use electricity, the price of which will have gone up. So like the the food processors, the distributers will also increase their prices to cover the costs, plus of course, their margin.

          All of these flow through increases are part of the modelling which results in just a 0.7% increase to the CPI. Compare that to the introduction of the GST which created a 2.5% CPU increase and you will see that you are basically getting worked up over nothing, or rather, getting worked up over something that will have a much smaller impact than the GST.

          And then of course, we have the retailers, who also have to power cold storage, chiller bins, freezers, lighting, heating, checkout, security, etc. all of which needs electricity, and so the retailer is facing larger power bills, but the cost of their merchandise has also increased because of increased upstream costs. All of this will be passed on to the customer, plus of course, the retailers percentage margin.

          Again the mistake you are making is completely over estimating how much retailers spend on electricity. It is actually a relatively small component compared to the cost of the goods they are selling, labour, rent etc.

          So you may not have a tax liability for CO2, but you will be the person at the end of the line who ends up paying. And don’t forget that GST is also added to the net price, so the dollar amount of any non-exempt goods will also go up as GST is paid on the accumulated carbon tax.

          Well gosh! That sounds like a good reason to cut the GST! It strikes me as surprising that people complain about the Carbon Tax when this year the GST will raise almost 900% more than the carbon tax! Why aren’t their street protests calling on the GST to be ended?

          Follow the supply chain, do the math, and you decide if people will be better or worse off.

          I will be better off because the income tax cuts will exceed the CPI increase.

          Many other people will be in the same situation.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            And you don’t know much about food production.

            I didn’t want to go there, because I thought it was overkill, but since you so graciously asked.

            Most food for human consumption is grown in hothouses or chicken barns, or pig stalls. All of which need to be air-conditioned in some way, with air purifiers, and machinery to remove waste, and bring in feed. The significant exemptions from this are cattle, sheep, and goats (who all produce greenhouse gases from both ends), and are dangerous to keep indoors.

            So when you take the entire food chain into account, energy in the form of electricity, is required at practically every stage. If a tomato seed costs you 1 cent, and you grow it into a plant, and get four kilos of tomatoes from that plant, that are sold retail at a dollar a kilo (say), then you have paid for the seed, and the dirt it grows in, and the rest is energy. Same goes for pigs and eggs, and all other foods. Roughly 80% of the retail price is converted directly from energy. It is that 80% of the price of food that will increase due to the carbon price/tax/whatever. Now tell me what proportion of the average household budget is spent on food (and the home use of energy), and tell me again, how much the income tax rebate will be.

            Time to get out of academia, and go and get some organic fertilizer on your boots.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Tony O

    It seems to be the norm these days for the various levels of government to call anyone who questions them a “scaremonger” – and not respond factually to their concerns.

    In Toowoomba, 7 years ago, when we campaigned against the local council’s intention to force us to drink (untried & unproven) recycled sewage water, we were called “scaremongers” (& Luddites, flat-earthers etc) – rather than answer our concerns factually. The same happened with the State government’s forced mass medication with fluoride.

    I would like to get one of these political government flunkies and [snip - none of that thanks- Jo] until they gave me a definitive, empirically-based answer on how much cooler the world will be because we are going to destroy our economy with Juliar’s carbon (dioxide) tax.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tony O

      Sorry Jo – it’s just that I get so angry with our government – they get elected on lies then just ignore everyone and everything that displeases them. Facts, logic – nothing fazes them.

      The problem is that eventually someone will get so pee’d off with the government that they will resort to violence – which is probably what the government is hoping for – to crack down on what few rights we have left.

      I just wish that we actually had some real rights guaranteed by the Australian Constitution – and the ability and desire to enforce them (unlike the USA aith Obama).


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Welcome to fradulent (C)riminal O2 TAX DAY!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    If I’m not mistaken, isn’t there a passage in the Australian Constitution that prevents the government from taxing government owned assests and the like?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      If I’m not mistaken, isn’t there a passage in the Australian Constitution that prevents the government from taxing government owned assests and the like?

      No.

      But the federal government does do some tricky things, like exempting itself from having to pay council rates for Parliament House.

      Of course it can do that because the federal parliament can just over rule any territory legislation it doesn’t like.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    What’s a “carbon dioxide equivalent” got to do with “carbon pollution”?

    Carbon Dioxide isn’t the only green house gas regulated by the carbon price, so it is erroneous to call it a Carbon Dioxide Tax. It doesn’t really make sense to call it a tax because it is really an Emissions Trading Scheme that starts with a fixed price before shifting to a market price from July 1, 2015.

    What’s the “carbon pollution” equivalent of methane gas expressed in diamonds?

    This is a stupid question that doesn’t contribute anything constructive to the discussion.

    And how and when and under what circumstances does a “price” become a “tax”?

    When it isn’t an Emissions Trading Scheme.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “Carbon Pollution”, “Carbon Tax”, “Price on Carbon”.

      All terms used by your Prime Minister, to describe this current scheme, at one time or another.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        “Carbon Pollution”, “Carbon Tax”, “Price on Carbon”.

        All terms used by your Prime Minister, to describe this current scheme, at one time or another.

        Call it whatever you want, but it will never be repealed.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Angry

          Adam Smith says,

          “it will never be repealed.”

          Obviously “Adam Smith” has no respect for DEMOCRACY !!

          He believes that future Australian governments and citizens will accept having the right to CHOOSE being removed from their power !!

          DREAM ON YOU COMMUNIST AHOLE !


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Obviously “Adam Smith” has no respect for DEMOCRACY !!

            He believes that future Australian governments and citizens will accept having the right to CHOOSE being removed from their power !!

            DREAM ON YOU COMMUNIST AHOLE !

            Wrong, wrong and wrong.

            I don’t think the ETS will be repealed purely for practical reasons.

            Doing so would cost the budget a lot of money, both in terms of a cut in revenue – the loss of money from selling carbon permits – but also because of an increase in expenditure required by needing to buy back all the existing permits.

            So it is a double wammy, less government revenue and higher government spending.

            How would the coalition make that add up?

            Oh and I think it is funny you are calling me a Communist when I advocate a market approach to reducing carbon emissions. It is the Coalition that is proposing to take a heap of your income taxes and hand it over to polluting industries in the hope they will reduce their emissions.

            To fully implement and monitor that you’d need a Soviet style bureaucracy.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        “Carbon Pollution”, “Carbon Tax”, “Price on Carbon”.

        And all of which Team Smith have simply weasel-worded around for the last hour.

        Please read my post to you immediately above this one and just ignore these pricks, or they will simply hijack the threads again like they did last time.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          Observing things on the site as a do from the other side of the ball I find it interesting that the “smith” creature was nowhere to be found until this thread. I had forgotten “it” existed. But I am not surprised to see “its” return. Heaven forbid you should actually be able to vent your rejection of this “tax” or even be able to discuss why it is wrong.
          All that matters to the “smith” creature is, as you say, disrupting your ability to do so with talking points that when “it” is pressed to do so are never further explained. Apparently once you ask “it” why “it” knows it is time to move on to the next talking point.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Popeye

    Did my tiny bit (along with thousands of others) for Australia today and marched in the Sydney Hyde Park rally.

    What an absolute thrill to see so many people who are also concerned about the future of our wonderful country and where this Socialist regime is attempting to take us all.

    There were many good speakers (including small business owners and an irrigation farmer) and all spoke extremely well and with heartfelt passion.

    Professor David Archibald was there again – he is invaluable in this ongoing battle!

    I’d just like to remind everyone – this whole carbon (dioxide) tax/ETS has NOTHING to do with climate change OR pollution – IT IS ALL ABOUT AGENDA 21!!!

    Look up Agenda 21 on the WWW – tell your children, grand children, friends and anyone who’ll listen what this is REALLY all about – ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT (the UN) and socialist control of all of mankind and of everything we do!!

    Email your local members (ESPECIALLY if they are coalition members) – WE MUST FORCE THEM TO DROP THEIR DIRECT ACTION PLAN – it is also based on SCAM science.

    What we need is a Royal Commission into the climate/CO2 fraud – take a broom through the ABC, the CSIRO and BOM.

    The Coalition ALSO need to know that if they don’t do this they are also guilty of not supporting Australia and it’s citizens AND our sovereignty.

    Australian’s will not let them get away with this BS either, particularly with the MASSIVE mandate they are likely to achieve!!!

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Adam

    In the garden of Eden.

    So pure and ecologically aware that his life has no adverse impact on nature or any other life form.

    Reminds me of a diamond; so perfect and untainted.

    But hell; you can’t escape the net, I just remembered that Diamond is almost pure Carbon and therefore an illegal topic with warmers.

    Sorry Adam.

    I hear the price of diamonds is set to skyrocket under the C Tax and Adam will be helping the Big Derdy Polluders pay their C tax by buying their products.

    This has been a bit of ramble but hell it still makes more sense than AGW and the C Tax so there.

    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    So pure and ecologically aware that his life has no adverse impact on nature or any other life form.

    Err what? By all means critique things I have written, but critiquing things I haven’t asserted is just silly.

    But hell; you can’t escape the net, I just remembered that Diamond is almost pure Carbon and therefore an illegal topic with warmers.

    What on earth does this have to do with the price of eggs?

    I hear the price of diamonds is set to skyrocket under the C Tax and Adam will be helping the Big Derdy Polluders pay their C tax by buying their products.

    WHAT!? This is the weirdest criticism of the carbon tax I have read yet, why on earth would the price of diamonds increase?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Adam asks: “why on earth would the price of diamonds increase?”

      Common dude.

      Diamonds are PURE carbon.

      As I said Adam, just rambling and almost incoherent like most warmer arguments.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I can think of another reason that diamonds might increase in value. In times when money loses value people put their wealth is such things as precious metals and diamonds because historically they appreciate when money depreciates. Thus you preserve your wealth — or so the theory says.

        How well that will work in practice is yet to be seen. But that’s the basis on which rising diamond prices are predicted.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          I can think of another reason that diamonds might increase in value. In times when money loses value

          Well clearly this doesn’t relate to now because the AUD$ as I write this message is sitting on US$1.02, when the long term average is US$0.75.

          In fact, one reason the AUD$ is so high is because overseas countries keep buying Australian Government bonds, because they are such a good investment, which means they have to buy AUD$s.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Angry

        “Adam Smith”,
        That fact that you are not even cognisent that diamonds are PURE CARBON, pollution in your language, speaks volumes !


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          “Adam Smith”,
          That fact that you are not even cognisent that diamonds are PURE CARBON, pollution in your language, speaks volumes !

          The fact you are going on about diamonds, which are a solid, demonstrates that you don’t even have a basic understanding of how the ETS works.

          It places a fee (the purchase of permits) on atmospheric green house gases. It doesn’t tax things that are solids!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Adam asks: “why on earth would the price of diamonds increase?”

        Common dude.

        Diamonds are PURE carbon.

        Completely irrelevant!

        Businesses that put a range of green house GASES into the ATMOSPHERE must buy permits to cover their liability.

        Diamonds are a SOLID, thus there is no pollution liability for diamonds!

        It is incredible to me that the people critiquing the ETS don’t even have a basic understanding of what it is or how it works.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Team Smith says: and I quote:

          “Completely irrelevant! ”

          I couldn’t agree more TS.

          The hullaballoo about so called man made warming via CO2 is as you say “Completely irrelevant! ” because man made CO2 levels are so small in the process and much less than the effect of water vapour anyhow.

          Also the sun often shines on us to help keep us all warm and cozy.

          Thank God for CO2 for without his bounteous blessing of CO2 we would all die.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The Place of Carbon in Our Lives.

    The stupidity of the concept of Carbon or Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant is illustrated by its’ place in regulating our bodily functions.

    In our bloodstream the constant struggle is to balance dissolved CO2 and O2.

    During overexertion we can increase CO2 in the blood stream.

    As a counter mechanism through heavy breathing we can remove excess CO2 from our bloodstream.

    That’s life.

    Both gases are essential for life and CO2 is a neural regulator that prevents alkylosis (too much oxygen and reduced CO2) and helps maintain brain function as I have outlined in earlier posts.

    CO2 is so essential to our existence that the last thing we do before passing over to the other world is to remove CO2 from the blood stream and induce alkylosis.

    So death is finally achieved by removing all the life giving CO2 from our brains by Cheyne – Stokes breathing.

    I suspect that more accidental deaths have been caused by breathing pure oxygen in error (diving and aircraft life support systems) than by taking in high doses of carbon dioxide.

    maybe we should ban oxygen?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      And of all the gases, Nitrogen is the biggest killer of all.
      Definitely should have been banned, or taxed into submission, years ago.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Keith,

      Definitely ban oxygen. After all, it’s one of the components of the much dreaded carbon dioxide molecule. In ugly fact there are twice as many oxygen atoms in a CO2 molecule as there are carbon atoms. So oxygen must be twice the problem that carbon is. And if we ban oxygen then there can’t be any more CO2 to pollute the world’s air and water.

      I’ll write my legislators, you write to yours and we’ll get everyone started on this project right away.

      This might even be worth a couple of hundred billion in research grants. Oh happy day!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Angry

      KinkyKeith says,
      “maybe we should ban oxygen?”
      Don’t give them any more ideas…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John M

    The carbon tax is certainly misleading in that the government is borrowing considerably more than they collect in the tax revenue it raises, so they can redirect money to the lower income households. This is plainly an income redistribution strategy aimed at trying to win back blue collar support. It seems all too obvious that if you are borrowing billions from the world bank to give as handouts under the guise of a carbon tax then this is economically irresponsible and counter productive to achieving the tax end-goal.

    But what seems uncertain is how the government plans to address the over-compensation issue once the tax is converted to a carbon trading scheme. Essentially the government makes no money from such a scheme but it’s left with the tax revenue shortfall caused by the compensation in the form of reduced rates of tax to low income earners. Obviously this means more new taxes on middle-high income Australians and businesses in a few years.

    To make matters worse for the government’s tax revenues, it will also see reduced growth courtesy of it’s ETS as many billions of dollars gets sent offshore to lucky winners in developing countries. When you add the potential negative growth impacts of the mining tax on top it just gets worse, and all this at a time of extroadinary global economic uncertainty.

    If Labor were to stay in power for a decade and retain these policies it would be interesting to see their plans to raise tax revenue, especially if they also plan to keep the budget in surplus as promised. My guess is that we would see similar types of wealth taxes as in Europe such as death duties, property taxes for home owners and large income tax rate rises for middle-high earners. In other words we would eventually be strangled by socialism akin to the many high debt counties in Europe.

    And, what happens when Abbott wins office in 18 months (I’m an optimist :-) !) ?.
    Firstly, it will be very tough to re-increase rates of tax for the lower income earners without some political fallout or hardship to this group. Next, the energy price increases caused by the tax will most likely largely remain as energy companies will probably abuse the opportunity. This means there will be some residual inflationary pressures remaining in the system which will dampen growth for several years. Finally, on a more positive note, business confidence will rise when the mining and carbon tax get removed and this will increase growth and tax revenues. But, it looks likely that Abbott will need to increase taxes in the medium term to pay for Labor’s carbon sins and large accrued debt if they are to maintain a balanced budget.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Seriously I’m not sure I’ve read the whole thread this gem was taken from, but it must have been dreadful if this was the highlight. I mean what absolute drivel.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And you know all about drivel, don’t you Matt? In fact you’re quite the master of it yourself.

      Talk about the pot calling the kettle black… ;-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        maybe Roy – but Jo has never seen fit to take my most mind numbingly stupid post and dedicate an entire thread to celebrating it.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Carbon Free

    Hi Jo,

    Thanks for posting my comments post for Carbon Sunday.
    I wanted to reply earlier but the sky fell in around noon and damaged my solar array, :-)

    BR
    CF


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    The carbon tax is certainly misleading in that the government is borrowing considerably more than they collect in the tax revenue it raises, so they can redirect money to the lower income households.

    You are only correct about the scheme costing more than its revenue in its first year. In the first year it will cost $500 million more than is received, but the major reason for this is that some expenditure for the compensation package was in the previous financial year (the one that ended before today) because compensation payments started in March, which is before the government started receiving money for the permits.

    This is plainly an income redistribution strategy aimed at trying to win back blue collar support.

    This statement is wrong in two different ways 1) What the government has tried to do by increasing the tax free threshold is to fix up the tax scales to make up for the unfair GST compensation measures which gave more compensation to people on higher incomes.

    Secondly, the only election where Labor has lost the Blue Collar vote was 1996. They have one a majority of the blue collar vote at ever subsequent election. It is a myth that Labor doesn’t win a majority of the blue collar vote. But of course that segment of the populace has been in decline for at least the last 20 years. Elections or one or lost by attracting swinging voters (and their families) that mainly work in services.

    It seems all too obvious that if you are borrowing billions from the world ban

    Excuse me? Australia has never borrowed money from the World Bank! When Australian governments borrow money, the federal government sells government backed bonds. Australia is one of just a few countries that have a AAA+ credit rating from the three major ratings agencies. Almost 80% of Australia’s debt is owned by other countries because it is such a secure investment.

    And it is astonishing for you to be so worried about Australia’s debt when it is amongst the lowest in the developed world.

    k to give as handouts under the guise of a carbon tax then this is economically irresponsible and counter productive to achieving the tax end-goal.

    Actually it was the HOWARD government that taxed and spent more than the current government. It is the current government that has finally put means tests on a bunch of government hand outs to ensure that they aren’t given to people who earn more than about 3 times median household earnings. Before that there were hand outs for everybody which was going to bankrupt the country.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Adam and friends,

    Australia is one of just a few countries that have a AAA+ credit rating from the three major ratings agencies

    As far as I’m aware, even Ireland has a AAA rating, and Spain only lost their AAA rating downgraded to AA+ in October 2010! Hardly comforting for Australia- those rating systems are essentially worthless arm waving exercises in a race to the economic Marianas trench of indebtedness. I wouldn’t trust any of those ratings agencies as far as I could throw them.

    Actually it was the HOWARD government that taxed and spent more than the current government.

    Totally disingenuous comment, Adam- the GST revenue during the Howard years inflated the tax take because it was a tax on CONSUMPTION which occurred during a time which coincided with excessive personal expenditure during a time of affluence, while the Carbon Tax is a tax on PRODUCTION, which is applied through the entire chain of supply, magnifying its damage to a moribund economy where consumers lack confidence and cost of living pressures are increasing. Howard’s middle class “welfare” was at least from a position of surplus, cutting direct taxes when fiscally responsible to do so, rather than the current plan to give handouts from borrowed funds when in record deficit, a recipe for disaster as unlike the former instance, little or no economic benefit will flow through to businesses to improve employment prospects, restore profitability or promote a robust, thriving economy. The only reason the tax take from the GST is less now is because nobody is spending because the economy has tanked under your watch- not exactly a ringing endorsement of your party’s economic credentials now is it? Try to explain to me how Rudd inherited a $40 Billion dollar surplus, and in 5 years converted it to a $200 Billion deficit, and that is a sign of “good economic management”.

    And Adam, remind me again of our last conversation about how Labor were only urging a switch to Solar and Wind power to facilitate the eventual conversion to Nuclear power, by proving them to be impractical opening the way for “debate”. That conversation remains a career highlight in the blogosphere for me- you might have to consult with other members of the team to see which one of you came up with that little gem! Of course Nuclear would only take 10-15 years max to get up and running, and so after kicking it around for a while, we won’t have too long to suffer under the glare of candlelight.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Hardly comforting for Australia- those rating systems are essentially worthless arm waving exercises in a race to the economic Marianas trench of indebtedness. I wouldn’t trust any of those ratings agencies as far as I could throw them.

      This is hilarious hyperbole. Australia has less debt now than it had for the entire period 1925 – 1985. In 1950, Australia’s debt to GDP ratio was 110%, but now it is about 14% and you are trying to convince everyone that is bad. You simply don’t have a clue about what you are going on about.

      Totally disingenuous comment, Adam- the GST revenue during the Howard years inflated the tax take because it was a tax on CONSUMPTION which occurred during a time which coincided with excessive personal expenditure during a time of affluence

      Oh dear, so apparently if a Coalition government taxes a lot, that is fine because that is just evidence about how well the economy is going!!!

      What an incredibly hypocritical statement to make. This financial year alone the GST will raise over $50 billion, but you are complaining about the carbon tax that will raise about $6 billion but is completely offset by income tax cuts and family payment increases.

      This is a perfect example of the complete hypocrisy of those that are basically saying that Coalition taxes are great while Labor taxes are bad, even though the over all tax take under the current government is lower than the previous government!

      while the Carbon Tax is a tax on PRODUCTION, which is applied through the entire chain of supply, magnifying its damage to a moribund economy where consumers lack confidence and cost of living pressures are increasing.

      What “moribund economy”!? Australia’s economy is growing at its fastest rate now since late 2007! Australia’s economy is growing faster than every other developed economy in the world! We have $500 billion worth of investment lined up in JUST mining, and another $400 billion or so lined up in other sectors.

      Stop talking down the economy!

      Howard’s middle class “welfare” was at least from a position of surplus

      This is economic stupidity. You don’t take increased revenue from once in a generation boost to the terms of trade and then write it into the budget as ongoing transfer payments! This means you have just added a heap of extra liabilities to the budget bottom line that need to be paid even if the economy slows, which of course will happen over time.

      This is an extremely weak defense of the Howard government’s record of big spending conservatism.

      Howard’s middle class “welfare” was at least from a position of surplus, cutting direct taxes when fiscally responsible to do so, rather than the current plan to give handouts from borrowed funds when in record deficit

      This is nonsense on so many levels. For starters, it is the revenue from the carbon permits that will fund increases to transfer payments. And you talk about cutting direct taxes, well today was the start of the biggest income tax cuts for 10 years! So if that is your bench mark, then you have to give the current government top marks.

      The assertion that Australia currently has its biggest deficit is simply a lie. Australia ran much bigger budget deficits during the early 1930s through to the early 1950s.

      little or no economic benefit will flow through to businesses to improve employment prospects, restore profitability or promote a robust, thriving economy.

      Australia HAS a robust and thriving economy that is growing faster than all other developed economies. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

      The only reason the tax take from the GST is less now is because nobody is spending because the economy has tanked under your watch

      What an incredible statement for you to make when the economy is growing now at its fastest rate since 2007!

      - not exactly a ringing endorsement of your party’s economic credentials now is it? Try to explain to me how Rudd inherited a $40 Billion dollar surplus, and in 5 years converted it to a $200 Billion deficit, and that is a sign of “good economic management”.

      Dear lord! What, and the Global Financial Crisis never happened? Every other developed country went into recession EXCEPT AUSTRALIA!

      But I can see that you are more concerned with debt rather than the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and their families who were saved from being unemployed. But now the economy is going great, low unemployment, low inflation, high GDP growth, historically low spending, low taxes. Australia is a great place to be, but you seem to be talking the place down.

      Of course Nuclear would only take 10-15 years max to get up and running, and so after kicking it around for a while, we won’t have too long to suffer under the glare of candlelight.

      Oh sorry, I didn’t realise that you’ve lost your electricity.

      Electricity is still working fine here.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        Australia has less debt now than it had for the entire period 1925 – 1985. In 1950, Australia’s debt to GDP ratio was 110%

        There were a couple of little episodes during that period, you might have heard of them- one was called “The Great Depression” and the other was called “World War 2″. During this period, large swathes of the tax-paying and productive population were either unemployed, homeless or overseas being killed or maimed. Good to see you aim high.

        This financial year alone the GST will raise over $50 billion, but you are complaining about the carbon tax that will raise about $6 billion but is completely offset by income tax cuts and family payment increases.

        You didn’t address my point about a production versus a consumption tax- and since the GST revenues are so high why does one need yet another tax on top of that, one which stifles production and introduces yet another layer of bureaucracy and red tape to an already over-burdened productive sector. And it is merely the thin end of the wedge, as you well know- all compensation upfront, all financial pain at the back end as it rises to incorporate more than the 300 polluters it currently effects to range across the entire economy to every farmer, primary producer, industry, etc. That’s the idea isn’t it? It’s supposed to cause financial pain to industry, otherwise why do it? Driving these industries overseas will be a fait accompli to be proud of. And completely offset to whom, certainly not those earning over $80,000 per year with 2 working parents with dependent children- but then who cares about them anyway?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          You didn’t address my point about a production versus a consumption tax- and since the GST revenues are so high why does one need yet another tax on top of that, one which stifles production and introduces yet another layer of bureaucracy and red tape to an already over-burdened productive sector.

          WOAH! It is a bit rich for you to be worried about bureaucracy when the GST turned EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS in the country into a tax collector for the ATO! Only about 300 companies have to buy carbon permits, which I completely agree puts a burden on them, but how that is the same as 9 million businesses being turned into GST collectors I have no idea.

          And it is merely the thin end of the wedge, as you well know- all compensation upfront, all financial pain at the back end as it rises to incorporate more than the 300 polluters it currently effects to range across the entire economy to every farmer, primary producer, industry, etc.

          This makes no sense. The increase to the tax free threshold means you get a tax cut relative to last years tax scales each time you get a pay cheque. You get money in your pocket through lower income tax, whereas previously you had a lower tax free threshold so more money got sent to the RBA each week and then you claimed some of it back at the end of the financial year.

          Having a significantly higher tax free threshold means you get more cash in your pocket each week (or fortnight) when you need it.

          That’s the idea isn’t it? It’s supposed to cause financial pain to industry, otherwise why do it? Driving these industries overseas will be a fait accompli to be proud of. And completely offset to whom, certainly not those earning over $80,000 per year with 2 working parents with dependent children- but then who cares about them anyway?

          Well this analysis is just wrong because the increases to family tax benefit payments don’t end until $150,000 for a house hold. So you are just being misleading or simply don’t understand the compensation scheme.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Get your facts straight.

      The current level of Federal Gov. debt is 17% and going up because they are borrowing to fund the handouts at the start of the “carbon tax”. The overall rate of government debt in Australia is closer to 27%. And that doesn’t count the “off balance sheet” liabilities, such as public service superannuation and, for what it is worth, those payouts to retiring politicians, judges and those paid, directly or indirectly, by the Gov. but not counted as public servants.

      But those percentages would climb if the economy went into recession. You probably think that unlikely, but out in the real world people are worried about jobs etc. and cutting back on spending, which effects retail and manufacturing. And today’s paper points out that 1 in 5 of planned mining projects are on hold. Will the scheme benefit Australia? No. Even the Government admits that the first 15 years will be “financed” by the buying of overseas permits. Hello exchange rate crisis.

      And what benefit will the “carbon tax” bring? Will it cut CO2 emissions? No, the estimate is that they will go up for the next 15-17 years. The only way Australia will cut the output of CO2 is if companies shut down here.
      Will it cut emissions in the world? Obviously not if over 75% of emissions are coming from countries that have signalled that they will not be cutting emissions in future.

      Will it cause a boom in alternative energy? Only if the subsidies and carbon tax rate go up drastically. Wind power costs $110-120 per MWh, solar even more, yet coal fired is around $40.

      In any case if lots of wind turbines are built, how much will they cut CO2 emissions? Very little. Even if we replaced all coal and gas fired capacity in Australia with the same capacity of wind turbines, 90+% of the reduction in CO2 would be because there would be electricity only one third of the time (if you’re lucky). The limited contribution from the turbines would be about 5-6% of current emissions. Let’s see … that is nearly 0.08% of current world emissions.

      And all of this based on an unproved assumption that CO2 is affecting the climate.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        The current level of Federal Gov. debt is 17% and going up because they are borrowing to fund the handouts at the start of the “carbon tax”.

        Wrong. The early start of compensation payments (from March) was $500 million in the budget for the previous financial year. The budget for next financial year is projected to be a surplus, which means it is erroneous to say that debt is still increasing when it will start being paid off.

        The overall rate of government debt in Australia is closer to 27%.

        27% is very low compared to other developed countries AND when compared to Australia’s history. It took until the late 1980s for the federal government to produce ANY surplus! There wasn’t a single budget surplus for the time Robert Menzies was Prime Minister, for example.

        And that doesn’t count the “off balance sheet” liabilities, such as public service superannuation and, for what it is worth, those payouts to retiring politicians, judges and those paid, directly or indirectly, by the Gov. but not counted as public servants.

        The future fund will more than cover the liabilities of federal superannuation.

        But those percentages would climb if the economy went into recession. You probably think that unlikely, but out in the real world people are worried about jobs etc. and cutting back on spending, which effects retail and manufacturing.

        In the March quarter, Australia’s economy grew at its fastest rate since the December quarter of 2007. By simply asserting that Australia is somehow headed for a recession you are just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. I agree with you that manufacturing is doing it tough, but that is primarily because the dollar is so high because of so much investment in mining (which of course is why we should get more money from mining companies through the mining super profits tax).

        Your comment about consumption is just completely wrong, because consumption in the March quarter was at its highest level since early 2008, before the GFC. Retail will be one of the main beneficiaries of interest rates being lower now than since the early 1960s because it gives people more money that they don’t have to spend on mortgage repayments. Retail will also benefit from the income tax cuts that started on Sunday, the biggest income tax cuts for 10 years.

        And today’s paper points out that 1 in 5 of planned mining projects are on hold. Will the scheme benefit Australia? No. Even the Government admits that the first 15 years will be “financed” by the buying of overseas permits. Hello exchange rate crisis.

        There is HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS of investment lined up in mining! Of course it is not a surprise that some projects are on hold because you just can’t build that much infrastructure fast enough. What will happen is the projects with the greatest economic benefit will be given priority. This is nothing to worry about. What you should worry about is if we didn’t have project lined up in mining.

        And what benefit will the “carbon tax” bring? Will it cut CO2 emissions? No, the estimate is that they will go up for the next 15-17 years. The only way Australia will cut the output of CO2 is if companies shut down here.

        The first job is to slow the rate of increase in emissions. You don’t want to just stop emissions over night because this would hurt the economy. The fact is the carbon price, tax, ETS, whatever you want to call it, is the cheapest way to achieve this objective, so it should be supported because the alternative approaches would just cost the economy more money which will ultimately be passed on as higher costs.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    There has been a bit of chatter here about how Australia has a better, and more robust, economy than other countries.

    For the record, and based on last year’s GDP figures, Australia is ranked at 19th in the world, slightly behind Iran, Turkey, and Indonesia.

    [Source: World Bank]


    Report this

    00

    • #

      And on a per capita basis?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        We lie anywhere between 13th and 16th depending on whom you quote on a per capita basis- if you look at the IMF list, directly behind us in the pecking order is Ireland- a renowned economic basket case- so the per capita GDP figures are really not a reflection of the economic health of the country, since much of that GDP is not accessable to the taxpayers (ie- mining) and also includes such factors as government expenditure, which is a reflection of debt, not wealth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      For the record, and based on last year’s GDP figures, Australia is ranked at 19th in the world, slightly behind Iran, Turkey, and Indonesia

      .

      OMG! The Iranian economy is a BASKET CASE which depends completely on the price of oil.

      In Iran the unemployment rate is something like 15%! And yet you think that is better than Australia which has an unemployment rate of 5.1%!?

      Australia is a MAJOR developed economy, whereas Iran, Turkey and Indonesia are developing economies. Australia has a GDP per capita of something like $40,000 which puts us ahead of the U.S. and Japan!

      In the March quarter, Australia’s economy grew faster THAN ALL OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES!

      It is astonishing to me that you are reverting to just talking down the Australian economy to score some cheap political point.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    A GUIDE TO TEAM SMITH

    .
    For those of you new to this site, please allow me to explain about “Adam Smith” aka Team Smith.

    Team Smith is not a person, it’s a group all sitting around a table, operating via a shared wireless router, or similar setup, all posting under the same nic – “Adam Smith”. This was established conclusively just before Team Smith got banned last time.

    Team Smith’s only purpose and function is to hijack the thread. They will never actually directly answer anything. Any and every post you direct to them simply becomes an excuse for them to carpet-bomb the thread and bury it under a pile of drivel.
    Team Smith’s modus operandi is as follows:

    Team Smith will state black is white.
    Someone responds that black is black and white is white.

    Team Smith reply (in 500 words or more) that this ignores all the shades of grey.
    Somebody points out that grey is a mixture of black and white.

    Team Smith reply (in 750 words minimum), declaring the respondent is simply being abusive, ignoring the issue and discriminating against green and purple.

    A frustrated reader will ask what the hell has green and purple got to do with it.
    Team Smith will post a cut and paste twenty page reply triumphantly declaring this proves the respondent is intellectually defective and that obviously this demonstrates conclusively that white is black.

    And then if anybody is foolish enough (as I have been in the past) to point out that Team Smith has just gone round in a great big circle, they will just lead you around it all over again.

    The only measurable end result is exactly what appears above for the second half of this thread; a complete inconsequential carpet-bombing hijack of the entire thread.

    .
    The ONLY way to deal with Team Smith is simply to ignore them.
    You are never going to accomplish anything worthwhile by replying.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      MV,

      The return of Adam Smiff merely highlights the flaws in our judicial system especially when it comes to early parole and day release programs.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Winston

      Sorry MV,
      I didn’t mean to feed the troll. I promise I’ll be good from now on.
      Cheers,
      Winston


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Lol. Mate people like Adam Smith and myself are feeding you guys!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        No apology needed Winston.

        There’s nothing wrong with encouraging trolls.
        Give them enough encouragement and they eventually trip over their own cleverness -
        - like MattB’s suggestion that people freezing and starving to death should wear an extra jumper.

        Team Smith are not trolls.
        They have utterly no interest in engaging in debate or even saying anything substantial at all.
        Their only interest is to be disruptive and turn people off reading through the comments.

        If I were Jo I’d create a “Team Smith” link in the left or right hand sidebars, and transfer their comments to a separate page, leaving behind a [snip - transferred] note in the main thread section.

        That way the threads would be free of their disruption, there would a place where anybody bored enough could go and read their vacuous verbiage, and even respond if they so wished, without the Team being able to scream “censorship”.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Team Smith is not a person, it’s a group all sitting around a table, operating via a shared wireless router, or similar setup, all posting under the same nic – “Adam Smith”. This was established conclusively just before Team Smith got banned last time.

      Oh dear! What an astonish conspiracy.

      Have you considered that there are many people in Australia that don’t agree with you? Why do you need to come up with some grand conspiracy to explain away why someone would dare go on the internet and write things that you don’t agree with?

      Just stick to the issues mate.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Now that we have CDP (Carbon Dioxide Pricing) can anyone tell me who the hell are the FFS (Filthy Five-hundred Smokers)?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, the Carbon Price is operating and the sky hasn’t fallen in. Most of you will get a nice tax cut in your next pay packet—use it to reduce your emissions in ways that cut your heating and cooling and travel costs and be even better off.

    Oh—Tony Abbott will not rescind the Carbon Price, sorry I’m sure. Might do some fiddling at the margins is all. Not that Abbott will ever be PM anyway.

    So when you get that tax cut please try and think who has been lying to you and why.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark

      One thing I’m sure of Maxine is that if you told anybody it was raining, they’d go outside to look for themselves. Nobody cares what you think Abbott (or anyone else, for that matter) will do in the future so get back to your bong.

      At least then you’ll be happier and the blogosphere will be free of your electronic pollution.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ian Hill

      It will take a while. The Titanic didn’t sink immediately.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “Most of you will get a nice tax cut in your next pay packet”

      Yes, and please see my comments at 37.1.3 and 37.1.3.2.1, and tell us all how that nice tax cut won’t be swallowed up by the increased cost of food, heating, and lighting, once the electricity tariffs have been adjusted to pass the costs of the tax on to consumers.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Yes, and please see my comments at 37.1.3 and 37.1.3.2.1, and tell us all how that nice tax cut won’t be swallowed up by the increased cost of food, heating, and lighting, once the electricity tariffs have been adjusted to pass the costs of the tax on to consumers.

        Of course there will be flow on costs, in particular for electricity and gas (10% and 9% respectively). Food will increase by about 1%.

        But the simple facts are that electricity actually comprises a relatively small part of a household budget. People spend much more on mortgage repayments or rent, food, petrol.

        Yes there will be cost increases, but keep things in perspective here, energy costs are not the biggest part of the average household budget.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sonny

      We’ve been pumping CO2 out at exponential rates over the past decade and “the sky hasn’t fallen in” Maxine. Infact the world has not even been warming. (don’t bother to argue this point Maxine, we know that you deny inconvenient satellite, weather balloon and unadjusted thermometer data.)
      Since “the sky hadn’t fallen in” we can just forget about climate change.
      I’m going to light up my first cigarette and see “If the sky falls in”. If it doesn’t I will take up a pack a day habit after triumphantly declaring that “the sky hasn’t fallen in”.

      Do us all a favour Maxine and stop beathing for 10 seconds. Once you notice that “the sky hasn’t fallen in” continue to hold your breath.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mark

    Yep, MV.

    Just a bunch of blowhards like their vaunted high school drop-out and bullyboy, Paul Keating. Exactly the same tactics, just shout down dissent.

    One can understand their frustration that the electorate doesn’t currently acknowledge their “brilliance” and will be even less appreciative come next election.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Yeah.

      I have a sneaky suspicion people like Team Smith, Maxine and the GetUp rentacrowd have no idea what the impact of the carbon tax will be on home energy bills, because they don’t pay them.

      .
      That’s what mummy and daddy are for.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        I have a sneaky suspicion people like Team Smith, Maxine and the GetUp rentacrowd have no idea what the impact of the carbon tax will be on home energy bills, because they don’t pay them.

        WRONG! I do pay electricity and gas bills. The carbon tax will increase electricity by about 10% and gas by about 9%.

        It is funny to me that the government gets attacked for saying that energy prices will increase, but the Opposition gets a free ride even though it is obvious that their scheme will also result in energy prices increasing for the very simple fact that energy generation in Australia is very carbon intensive.

        I don’t understand why the current government being upfront about energy increases is less honest than the Opposition who wants us to believe that the same won’t happen under their scheme.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Robert

      One can understand their frustration that the electorate doesn’t currently acknowledge their “brilliance” and will be even less appreciative come next election./blockquote>

      Don’t forget those of us from other locales like Europe, the US, etc. who also don’t acknowledge their “brilliance.” That must really frustrate them.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    • #
      Robert

      Hiya crakar.

      Took a look at the 2nd link for the record lows here in the US. Was curious since I am currently in the northern portion of the “midwest” and we’re going through some hot weather here.

      What I am seeing, especially after looking at the link you provided and seeing what is happening in areas where I have lived at one time or another, looks more like changes as a result of shifts in wind patterns. Now let them prove to us that those prior wind patterns were ‘normal’ and would never have changed and had never been any different in the past. I’m sure we’ll be seeing the paper on that any day now…

      Nothing at all indicating any of it is global.

      But of course you won’t hear about the record lows in the “mainstream.” Hell it could have snowed in Miami last night and all we would here is “it’s hotter than ‘normal’ (whatever the hell ‘normal’ is) in XX.” as though it proves anything.

      Has to be the new wet/dry, warm/cold, bright/dark, etc. trip they are on now. If it doesn’t support their meme it is weather, if it does support them it is “climate” and so forth and so on.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Not very smart to introduce the Carbon Tax in mid-winter. Although par for the course when it comes to the sheer ineptitude of this ALP government.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Oh dear, starting it on July 1st means it starts on the first day of a new FINANCIAL year! It makes perfect sense to do it that way. In fact, most changes to the tax system are started on July 1st for the very reason that it means new rules or the end of old rules cut off cleanly from one financial year to the next!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    u won’t find any MSM coverage that even mentions “global warming” much less CAGW. hilarious!

    unfortunately caught Combet and Abbott on ABC’s Breakfast this morning – and Breakfast doesn’t do transcripts. Combet made no mention whatsoever of CAGW or global temps.

    Abbott was asked if the Coalition would abandon the ETS, to which he replied: “the short answer is ‘yes’”. so what is the long answer?

    at least Morgan Stanley is not celebrating yet:

    2 July: Reuters: James Grubel/Stian Reklev: RPT-Australia kicks off carbon tax, PM future in doubt
    Traders are also awaiting final rules on implementing the floor price on international units.
    Morgan Stanley says it is likely there will be very limited trade in international units until there is certainty on the repeal risk, plus clarity on the 2015-18 floor price and whether Australia agrees to a second commitment period under Kyoto.
    “Since a domestic unit auction will most likely not occur until after the next election in late 2013, if the Opposition is still talking about rescission and repeal, it is unlikely that a forward market will develop in these units,” Emile Abdurahman, executive director of Morgan Stanley Commodities in Sydney, said in emailed comments…
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/australia-carbon-idINL3E8I10FO20120701

    watch your Super Funds folks, the aptly named Mr. Fabian obviously has plans afoot. ask yourself, are these businesses the backbone of our economy? nevertheless, this will be quoted like the “97% of climate scientists say CAGW is real” rubbish. it’s all over the MSM already:

    2 July: News.com.au: Almost 300 businesses back carbon price
    ALMOST 300 businesses including Westpac, AGL, Unilever and GE have signed a joint statement backing a price on carbon…
    Mr Fabian (Businesses for Clean Energy consortium spokesman, Nathan Fabian) the chief executive of the Investors Group on Climate Change which represents investment houses and superannuation funds with around $700 billion of assets, said there was a clear global trend towards carbon pricing…
    http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/almost-300-businesses-back-carbon-price/story-fnda1bsz-1226414087277


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      ALMOST 300 businesses including Westpac, AGL, Unilever and GE have signed a joint statement backing a price on carbon…

      Carpetbaggers the lot of them.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    I remember the other day TontfromOZ and another commentator were discussing the new price of refridgerant gas. The other commentator claimed the increase in cost would be minimal whereas Tony was claiming the cost would increase quite dramatically.

    Now as you are all aware the radio waves are abuzz with stories about the carbon tax implications at this time and i heard an interesting story that i thought i would share with you all.

    This guy works in the refridgerant industry and he just got his new pricing lists and guess what, the cost of refridgerant will increase by…………………..drum roll……………………………………………………………………………………over 300%.

    He used to send out bills after the work was completed but now he is going to ask for payment up front before he begins work as he is not sure whether people can afford to pay.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Her is that list showing price increases for common refrigerants used here in Australia, and this is from an Australian Company Heatcraft.

      Refrigerant Prices

      As you can see, some of those gases have indeed tripled in price. Admitted they may only need 5 to 8 Kilos for medium sized system but even that is a very hefty price increase.

      Keep in mind that at the multipliers in use, some number in the thousands so that is CO2 cost multiplied by that number.

      In this first year, as Combet so artfully suggests, they are giving away 95% of those permits to those companies using these refrigerants, so those price rises indicate only what has been levied now at that 5% level.

      The importer of the gas pays extra to the Government at the import level, and that’s an added extra on top of what they are already paying for the gas pay for the gas. Then as they sell the gas to the Companies that use the gas for the service they provide, then they will also be charged the CO2 price multiplied by the multiplier, Then, those refrigeration and aircon companies who supply the gas will pass on the same price to consumers, not double dipping as you may think, but recovering the price they paid to their supplier, adding on their own little profit margin.

      So, next year, when less permits are given away, and the price increases, those gases will rise again, exponentially, and the same the year after. With the introduction of the ETS they will have to purchase full permits at the full multiplier.

      As I also explained, it’s not a matter of moving to a less costly gas, as the systems are designed to operate best with the designed gas, so changing to a less expensive gas means all new freezers, fridges, drink coolers, aircon units, compressors, large scale refrigeration at every level and so on.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I know that some of you may think that I’m ‘harping’ on these other gases, but consider, that on that list of 24 gases, 23 of them in total make up less than 100 PPM of the overall Atmosphere. (0.01 of the Atmosphere) and Methane is by far the largest of them.

        Even I know that they are more volatile than CO2 and that they caused the hole in the Ozone Layer which is now fixed, umm, is it.

        Some of you may wonder why some hospitals made it onto that list of the less than 300 top emitters.

        Some of those gases are used in medical procedures, and even though 95% of the credits were given away, you can see that when the ETS comes in at the full credit full multiplier level, then those gases will be so expensive that it will naturally lead to cutbacks in their emission, because no one will be able to afford to use them.

        Hmm! Just wondering now about those medical procedures. What might be used instead. Perhaps the anaesthetist might instead ask the patient, “here, just bite down on this belt now.”

        Or the Dentist, “sorry, no gas, just the needle.”

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    this is O/T – except for the fact the Banksters are all for the carbon tax and ETS and the BBC is such a shill for CAGW – but i can’t stop laughing at the BBC mention:

    Barclays chairman falls on his sword: And now a disturbing question, did
    Bank of England collude in interest rate fiddle?
    Barclays Chairman Marcus Agius may announce his resignation as early as this morning.
    Mr Agius, 65, an ultra-smooth former investment banker at Lazard, was paid a salary of £750,000 a year at Barclays.
    He is also chairman of the British Bankers’ Association – the trade body that oversees the setting of Libor – and is a senior non-executive director at the BBC…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167239/Libor-scandal-Barclays-chairman-falls-sword.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    proof Barclays is one of the biggest carbon cowboys:

    20 Jan: AOL: Barclays Closes US Carbon Desk In Latest Cap And Trade Setback
    A major European bank closed its US carbon trading business this week in a sign that 2012 is a “make-or-break” year for cap-and-trade programs designed to fight climate change.
    London-based Barclays determined the US carbon market, currently comprised of a handful of states, is too small to justify the expense of a dedicated trading desk in New York, according to sources familiar with the decision. Barclays was a major player in US greenhouse-gas trading programs on the East and West coasts and remains active in Europe’s carbon market, the largest in the world…
    “That is not good news for carbon-dioxide trading, especially not in the US,” says Gary Hart, a market analyst for ICAP Energy and a veteran pollution-rights trader. “There’s such uncertainty around the use of carbon cap-and-trade programs.”…
    The proposed market, similar to the European Union Emissions Trading System, caught the attention of major financial institutions, such as Barclays and JP Morgan, which saw U.S.-issued carbon allowances as a potentially lucrative new commodity…
    Even Europe’s carbon cap-and-trade program, in place since 2005, has been rocked by tax-fraud and computer-hacking scandals…
    Cap-and-trade supporters can already look forward to some wins in 2012. Australia plans to start a carbon tax in July, which will transition to a carbon market over three years, and Europe’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases is expanding to include emissions from aircraft…
    http://energy.aol.com/2012/01/20/barclays-closes-us-carbon-desk-in-latest-cap-and-trade-setback/

    Barclays: Products and Services for Business
    Marcus Agius, Chairman, Barclays: “Forward thinking companies around the world are re-evaluating the way they work in light of pressing environmental pressures – not least the profound changes that are happening to the earth’s climate. These companies, large and small, have recognised that businesses in the future will have to be green to grow and that sustainable business practices and reducing environmental impacts can have genuine bottom line benefits. But it is not just about cost savings, it is also about meeting growing consumer expectations that companies should be ‘doing the right thing’ and grasping the commercial opportunities that arise.”…
    Barclays Capital Global Carbon Index
    Barclays Capital launched the Barclays Capital Global Carbon Index (BGCI) in December 2007 – the first benchmark of its kind. The BGCI tracks the performance of carbon-related credits associated with the world’s major greenhouse gas emissions schemes. This is the first time that such an index has been made available to asset managers, private banks and institutional investors looking for a comprehensive benchmark for the rapidly growing carbon emissions markets. The Index offers investors direct and transparent access to the global carbon arena, which has the potential to become one of the world’s largest and most important commodities markets. The index is governed by the Barclays Capital Environmental Markets Index Committee, a newly formed independent body comprising representatives from the carbon industry, the institutional investment community and Barclays Capital. The Committee has been mandated to provide oversight to the development of the BGCI…
    Emissions Trading
    Barclays was the first UK bank to set up a dedicated carbon trading desk to help clients, and Barclays Capital is the most active player in the emissions trading market, having traded some 300 million tonnes as at February 2007…
    http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/BRC1/jsp/brccontrol?task=articleFWsocial&value=12564&target=_self&site=pfs

    and this is what our Govt, the Greens and the CAGW zealots are backing!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    just to finish up on Agius, cos u couldn’t make this stuff up:

    Wikipedia: Marcus Agius
    Marcus, married Katherine (born 1949), daughter of Edmund de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of England and has a close involvement with the Rothschild family estate, Exbury Gardens in Hampshire…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius

    15 June: DigitalJournal: Alexander Baron: Op-Ed: Bilderberg in and out of the news
    “Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and former business secretary Peter Mandelson weren’t the only Britons who attended the Bilderberg conference…The BBC had a man there, too, at the weekend: Marcus Agius, senior independent director of the BBC’s executive board.
    Agius, who is married to Katherine Rothschild and earns a £750,000 salary in his day job as chairman of Barclays Bank, is paid £47,000 by the BBC for 28 days’ work per year, principally advising the BBC Trust, which represents the interests of licence-fee payers.
    This might explain why the corporation did not report on the event this year.”…
    http://digitaljournal.com/article/326729

    Agenda 21 anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn

    Over the last couple of years, I don’t know how many emails I have sent to Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott with links to empirical evidence debunking the IPCC mantra. It became quite apparent to me, though, that they prefer to drink from the same well of IPCC junk science as the Gillard government.

    There was only ever going to be one way by which the Coalition could effectively kill off this tax from the start. That was by exposing the IPCC junk science that has underpinned the need for a carbon tax. The Coalition, however, failed spectacularly in this respect. It adopted the wrong strategy.

    The average Australian really has no idea whether there is a valid need to tackle climate change or whether Gillard’s carbon tax policy will be cheaper than Abbott’s policy. They just read what the media feeds them.

    But those of us who have spent years researching this matter know that, in reality, there is no evidence of a coming climate catastrophe, and know that the IPCC scientists ignored much of the climate science and overly exaggerated the effect of Co2 on climate.

    But try telling this to Abbott or Greg Hunt!!!! For them, the science is settled.

    So I blame the Coalition just as much as the Gillard government for the carbon tax.

    And will Abbott repeal the carbon tax? Of course not.

    Don’t forget, he is the man that once rightly stated the (IPCC) climate science was crap. Yet miraculously he changed his mind and became a believer in the IPCC’s Climate Bible.

    So why should anyone believe that Abbott will scrap the carbon tax if voted into government? Not me. I don’t trust any of these politicians. And you shouldn’t either.

    My advice to everyone is to face reality. The tax is here to stay. Live with it. Move on. And come the next election, punish the Labor government for its sins. But don’t get your hopes up too high that the carbon tax will ever be repealed. It won’t. Of that, I am very certain based on the history of taxes implemented in Australia.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Mervyn,

      Let us assume that you are correct in that whilst Abbott claims he will rescind this tax he infact has no intentions of doing so that would make him an even bigger liar than Julia.

      If so then why would you bother to vote for Liberal at the next election?

      What you are in effect saying is that we dont need a change in government but a change in the way we are governed.

      In other words you are calling for a revolution and if so where do i sign up?

      It is time that we the people make a stand and rid this once great country of the nanny state that has slowly and maliciously taken over.

      This style of government has ruined this country and we need to put a stop to it before it is too late or is it already too late?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Mervyn,
      Tony abbott has to get elected to do any good. The MSM are all believers or followers (useful idiots) on AGW, so any adverse comment from him will get him roasted, especially as a substantial number of australians, particularly the young, still believe the Earth is warming.

      Once elected there is a chance that he might change his mind. You might think that such an event is very rare among politicians, but it does happen.

      Of course, if there was an inquiry into certain organisations promoting AGW and their evidence was exposed to inspection in the glare of publicity, it might turn out that a responsible thing to do would involve a certain re-organistation of priorities.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        Graeme and Mervyn,
        Who says Abbott hasn’t changed his mind, or needed to in the first place even? If I were in his position, I’d just shut up until the time came, especially knowing within my own party were lurkers with a warmist agenda waiting to pounce. Unfortunately, it’s an act of faith, and there is nothing we can do about that. I understand why many have no faith at all (MV in particular and his concerns are indeed pertinent), but Abbott has made as clear a statement as anyone can make about rescinding the Carbon tax, so he’s the only chance we have. To vote for anyone else or to donkey vote is to be neutered completely, which I’m sure Adam Smith, Maxine, JB and MattB would just love as their preferred option for us to be silenced.

        Labor want to divide and conquer by driving a wedge amongst Liberal and conservative voters on this issue by suggesting Abbott won’t follow through- that suggests to me that he most likely will, and I think we should go for the best alternative we have as a result (interesting how most Labor supporters want Turnbull as Opposition Leader).

        If Abbott fails to deliver- then carpet bomb him with a campaign even more strident and “aggressive” (but not in a physical sense) than the one we are currently embarking upon. Politicians are populists and that you can rely upon, and in addition I’d rather trust a Christian minded conservative (bearing in mind I’m not religious) than an atheist zealot any day of the week. They at least have have some principles to fall back on, their adversaries have none. Our choice is considerably better than that of the USA, where “Mittens” vs “Urkel” looks to be Hobson’s choice, the Light-weight Championship of the World between two bought and paid for Wall St stooges with no prospect of any change to the status quo whatsoever no matter which way they vote. My deepest sympathies go out to our American friends as a result.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Mervyn,

      I agree with Graeme No 3 on this.

      We need to think strategically. We need to think three elections ahead.

      At the first election the Coalition needs the biggest majority they can get. Hopefully they will get sufficient majority to control the Senate as well. They need the largest majority they can get because they will lose a lot of it at the double dissolution election (if it is required).

      To get the maximum majority at the first election they need to minimise the number of contentious issues. The Opposition does not have the resources to fight on many fronts. The Government has the resources of all the public service to pull apart whatever the Opposition proposes. So the Opposition has to keep the message simple and minimise the number of issues they want to fight on.

      There are many people who are concerned about climate change and believe in renewable energy who may vote for the Coalition if they feel the Coalition is serious about these issues, but may not if the Coalition says AGW is crap and says it will stop the RET and stop subsidising renewable energy.

      The Opposition cannot educate the public from Opposition. It can lead once it gets into power. Then it can conduct reviews of Labor’s bad policies. Examples of how this might be done are: Royal Commissions into bias at the ABC, investigations into why the universities are dominated by socialists/progressives/communists and why they and teachers are brainwashing our children with loony ideologies. There may be Productivity Commission investigations into Industrial Relations laws, the NBN government owned monopoly of our communications, and Productivity Commission investigations into electricity prices (to reveal what a scam the renewable energy targets are and what they are costing us). None of this can be done from Opposition.

      First you get into power, then you reveal the “Black Hole” (as Peter Costello did when he revealed Paul Keating’s ‘Black Hole’ in 1996).

      So, at this stage, the Opposition should be trying to attract as many voters as possible. Not trying to educate the public. The focus must be to maximise the Coalition’s vote at the first election.

      The second election may be a double dissolution election. The aim at that election will be to try to get rid of the Green’s from having control of the Senate. To achieve that the Coalition must minimise the number of contentious pieces of legislation it wants to fight the election on. Therefore, many important policies that need to be addressed will have to be delayed until the third election.

      In its second term of government, the Coalition will conduct the reviews, PC investigations and Royal Commissions to educate the public and bring them on board so they will support the Coalition’s really important policies such as: tax reform, fix federal state relations, fix Industrial Relations, cut the funding for the ABC (and remove the bias), implement good energy policy.

      Third election – Having educated the public via these inquiries, investigations, Royal Commissions, etc. then it will be time to offer up good policies. That will be at the third election (if they have to hold a double dissolution election) or at the second election if no DD election is required.

      If the third election is held in say 2017 (which is about right), then we can see that electing the Rudd Labor Government in 2007, and the damage they have done, has set us back a decade.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        “At the first election the Coalition needs the biggest majority they can get. Hopefully they will get sufficient majority to control the Senate as well.” God help us if this happens. Look I’m not fussed if the Libs win, but there will be so many loony right policies introduced to appease nutbag extreme religious types. You want a reasonable majority in the house and then if you act reasonably in that time then the voters will trust you with a senate majority at an election where you have quality candidates in the marginals you want to win.

        Even if I thought AGW was a crock I can’t imagine hoping Tony Abbott was swept to power with a Senate majority!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          God help us if this happens. Look I’m not fussed if the Libs win, but there will be so many loony right policies introduced to appease nutbag extreme religious types.

          Why on Earth would you say that? At the moment we have the Senate controlled by the Loony Left (Labor + Greens). The Greens are fanatics and extremists. They are in alliance withy your Party. Don’t you see your comment as hipocritical and ideologically biased?

          The Labor-Green government is incompetent, totally irrational, ideologically driven and the worst government we’ve had in our lifetime, by a long margin. It’s even worse than Whitlam, and that was really bad.

          We need to get rational polices implemented. We need good government. The last thing we need is the Loony-Left blocking implementation of rational policy and preventing the Coalition from repealing most of the rubbish policies Labor-Greens have implemented.

          We need another decade or two of good government like the Howard era. Business needs stability in the regulatory environment. It needs confidence that the business environment and regulation will be stable so they can get on and do their business. They do not need 16,000 new regulations imposed on them that were dictated by the unions and the Greens.

          The best thing that could happen would be for the Coalition to get control of the Senate at the election.

          I trust the Coalition to take important policies to the electorate at an election, unlike Labor. (I accept they made a mistake by notr taking the ‘Work Choices’ policies to the electorate at an election. I don’t think they’d make that mistake again for a very long time.)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            I trust the Coalition to take important policies to the electorate at an election, unlike Labor. (I accept they made a mistake by notr taking the ‘Work Choices’ policies to the electorate at an election. I don’t think they’d make that mistake again for a very long time.)

            What about that time during the 2004 election campaign when Tony Abbott as health minister said that the Medicare Safety Net cut offs wouldn’t be changed if the government was re-elected, but then 2 months after the election the cut offs were changed which increased health costs for about 100,000 Australians?

            Does that mean Tony Abbott is a liar who can’t be trusted?


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        The second election may be a double dissolution election. The aim at that election will be to try to get rid of the Green’s from having control of the Senate. To achieve that the Coalition must minimise the number of contentious pieces of legislation it wants to fight the election on. Therefore, many important policies that need to be addressed will have to be delayed until the third election.

        Clearly you don’t understand how Australia’s electoral system works, because a double dissolution election would make it easier not harder for the Greens to win Senate seats. At a D.D. election, the quota to win one Senate seat in a state drops from 14.29% to 7.69%. So after the preference transfer, if the Greens received 15.38% of the vote in each state, not impossible if Labor’s vote is low, it would win two seats and thus go from having 9 seats in the current parliament to 12 in the new parliament. This would give the Greens more, not less power to block or amend legislation.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Adam as long as the Libs get a senate majority they don’t care how many greens have seats.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Adam as long as the Libs get a senate majority they don’t care how many greens have seats

            True, but I doubt this will happen.

            And even if it did, the Senate change over wouldn’t happen until July 1st, 2014 which means the carbon price would already be into its second year before an bill to repeal it could go through.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          Adam Smith,

          Clearly you don’t understand how the Australian electoraly system works and what happens at a double dissolution election.

          Because of the sequence of half senate elections, and the present numbers of greens Senators who will last to different times, it is likely their numbers will be reduced at a double dissolution election and lose control of the senate.

          Secondly, following a double dissolution election, there is ajoing sitting of both houses of parliament to pass the legislation that was rejected twice before the double dissolution. At that stage the numbers of the combined houses will pass the legislation.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            [Clearly you don’t understand how the Australian electoraly system works and what happens at a double dissolution election.

            Because of the sequence of half senate elections, and the present numbers of greens Senators who will last to different times, it is likely their numbers will be reduced at a double dissolution election and lose control of the senate.]
            Wrong again mate. A double dissolution election means that ALL of the Senate is dissolved at the same time that the House of Reps is dissolved. There is no such thing has a double dissolution election where only half of the senate is up for re-election. All of the Senators have their terms ended as soon as the D.D. is called.

            But as I explained in my previous post, a D.D. election REDUCES the required quota for the election of a Senator, thus it would be EASIER, not HARDER, for the Greens to win at least 9 Senators again and even gives them an outside chance of winning 12 if they could get to 15.38% of the vote.

            In fact, if the Greens won a touch over 23% of the vote AFTER PREFERENCE TRANSFER in Tasmania, they would win 3 Senators there alone.

            Double Dissolution elections are very rare (there hasn’t been one since 1984) because they work to the advantage of small parties and even independents. The major parties are aware of this and thus avoid them at all costs.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    My view, after JGs breach of faith with the electorate was that at that time the ALP could go to an election and lose, or see out their term and be decimated.
    The trend would indicate, I was correct. Methinks that for every day we have a carbon dioxide tax that the ALP will lose more votes. There comes a point with a disease, that one should consider amputation of the diseased body parts.
    Even committed ALP voters seem to make jokes about and ridicule AGW and the carbon dioxide tax.

    That is the upside. The downside is that word ‘scientist’, because of the designation ‘climate scientist’ will be reviled for a decade or two.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Abbott has to repeal the tax, it will be the central plank of his election platform.

    I am afraid Spacer, you (and others) have much to learn about pollie-speak.

    On page 7, in Section 3 of the Liberal Party Environment Policy we have the statement:

    According to the Clean Energy Council, a combination of clean energy measures and a CO2 abatement price of $15 per tonne could yield an annual CO2 emissions reduction of 20-30 million tonnes by 2020.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/Environment%20Policy.ashx

    So, Abbott repeals the tax part of the legislation, and moves the start date of the ETS from 2015 to the time the tax is repealed, with a floor price of $15 per tonne. The existing enabling legislation for the ETS has – coincidentally and conveniently – a floor price already of $15 per tonne, so no great changes needed there.

    Voila! Abbott has “kept” his promise, and the Liberal gubmint implements what the banksters wanted all along – a trading scheme in thin air – ALL in accord with Liberal Party written policy, so who can possibly complain?

    And don’t forget; in all probability they will have an “overwhelming mandate” to do this.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      What’s the difference MV? Or is that your point. Tony can’t bring in an ETS with a fixed floor price and claim it isn’t a tax. Because he’s been calling pretty much that a tax for the past 2 years.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Well it would help if you actually learned to read, Matt.
        Here is a link back to Jo’s previous article on Abbott’s “solemn promise”.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/if-he-wins-abbot-vows-to-kill-the-carbon-tax-from-day-one-admire-the-details/

        Read it carefully. Abbott promises to do three specific things:
        1) – Repeal the carbon tax legislation.
        2) – Close down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
        3) – Implement the Coalition’s “Direct Action Plan” (on climate change).

        Here is the difference between a “carbon tax” and an ETS.
        With a carbon tax, the money flows to the government.
        With an ETS the money flows to the investment banks, derivatives trading houses etc.

        The only people who ever “wanted” a carbon tax were the Greens. Labor didn’t “want” it, but NEEDED it for a few years to dig themselves out of the financial hole they have dug for themselves.

        The carbon tax legislation and the ETS legislation were separate bills, which have become law.
        Tony Abbott has promised to repeal ONE of those bills, which is now law.
        He hasn’t said boo about the other one – the ETS.

        The hubris shared by Australian politicians is now such that they actually believe they can pull off such a stunt, and the average ocker will swallow the spin. The really scary part is they might be right.

        Repealing the carbon tax at any time in its planned three year life is nothing, with little cost other than a loss of revenue to the government – adequately covered by Abbott’s second promise to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – which is why it is included.

        Shutting down a derivatives trading scheme – the ETS – after three years of operation – under a Liberal government – will cost tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation to the banksters.

        A bridge too far even for a military dictatorship.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Sorry MV I was agreeing with you. But surely when the above happens the voters who hate “Juliar” will be similarly appalled.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Sorry MV I was agreeing with you. But surely when the above happens the voters who hate “Juliar” will be similarly appalled.

            What about the 15 Coalition Senators still in parliament who were elected in 2007 on a platform of supporting an Emissions Trading Scheme? They’ve now voted against the CPRS twice and against the Clean Energy bills once.

            Why don’t people call them out for lying?

            Or does lying only matter when it involves policies that you don’t support?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            But surely when the above happens the voters who hate “Juliar” will be similarly appalled.

            Yes.
            And deservedly so.

            The difference is JuLIAR never had a “popular mandate” to do what she did.
            In all probability the Liberals will be able to claim one of the biggest mandates in our political history.

            The possibilities are truly scary.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      So, Abbott repeals the tax part of the legislation, and moves the start date of the ETS from 2015 to the time the tax is repealed, with a floor price of $15 per tonne. The existing enabling legislation for the ETS has – coincidentally and conveniently – a floor price already of $15 per tonne, so no great changes needed there.

      Voila! Abbott has “kept” his promise, and the Liberal gubmint implements what the banksters wanted all along – a trading scheme in thin air – ALL in accord with Liberal Party written policy, so who can possibly complain?

      And don’t forget; in all probability they will have an “overwhelming mandate” to do this.

      This is a fascinating analysis. It is obvious that the carbon tax, price, whatever you want to call it, will never be repealed. At most it will be modified to make the carbon price artificially low, but it will never be repealed because to achieve that the government would have to buy back all the permits which it can’t afford to do.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Here is the difference between a “carbon tax” and an ETS.
    With a carbon tax, the money flows to the government.
    With an ETS the money flows to the investment banks, derivatives trading houses etc.

    ???

    We already have an ETS, but it is a FIXED PRICED ETS. In both a fixed and market price ETS, the government gets the revenue because it sells the permits. At the moment it sells them for the fixed price of $23 each, but starting July 1, 2015 it will auction them off to the highest bidder.

    The only people who ever “wanted” a carbon tax were the Greens. Labor didn’t “want” it, but NEEDED it for a few years to dig themselves out of the financial hole they have dug for themselves.

    Actually Tony Abbott advocated a carbon tax when Malcolm Turnbull was Liberal leader. Hear him say it here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

    The carbon tax legislation and the ETS legislation were separate bills, which have become law.

    No, they were the same bill, because, as I wrote before, what started on Sunday IS an Emissions Trading Scheme. But for the first three years the permits will have a FIXED price, rather than a market determined floating price. Also companies can not trade the permits with each other, all they can do is sell them back to the government if it turns out they bought too many and didn’t need them (i.e. if they cut their CO2-e emissions and thus have a lower liability).

    You are making a common mistake of failing to realise that what started on Sunday IS an Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Tony Abbott has promised to repeal ONE of those bills, which is now law.

    He hasn’t said boo about the other one – the ETS.

    They are the same thing. Abbott can’t repeal them because it has no way of getting enough money to buy back all of the permits.

    Repealing the carbon tax at any time in its planned three year life is nothing, with little cost other than a loss of revenue to the government – adequately covered by Abbott’s second promise to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – which is why it is included.

    The cost will be the cost of all the permits for the 2014/15 financial year, something like $8 billion.

    But the government is also going to auction forward dated permits which will need to be bought back too. That could easily cost another $5 billion or more.

    Any ideas where the Opposition will find $13 billion in one financial year? Which taxes will they increase? What spending will they cut?

    Or will they pay for it using debt?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      How much will the Carbon Tax/ETS reduce the temperature of the world in 2100?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Adam, a Coalition government could spend $13 bn to pay out those bills (if that is required) — it’s less than the money wasted by the ALP. How about taking $10bn out of the Renewable Energy Fund, axing the DCC, stopping compensation for a tax that no longer exists,then there is an increase in tax revenue they will get as companies get some certainty, invest in the nation, stop moving work overseas. No more pink batts, no more 800k tin sheds built in schools. Oh yes, the Coalition would need to axe some solar and wind schemes, that will really break the nations heart eh? And if the Coalition still pander to the renewables, never fear, they will be savaged and lobbied to put in policies that make sense.

      Your point merely underscores how deceitful, arrogant and nasty the ALP are. They have no respect for Australian voters which is exactly why they are bombing in the polls. Hello 30%?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Adam, a Coalition government could spend $13 bn to pay out those bills (if that is required) — it’s less than the money wasted by the ALP.

        Where would that $13 billion come from? What spending will they cut? What taxes will they introduce and / or increase to cover that cost?

        You can’t say it will be paid for with money that has already been wasted because, well that money has been spent.

        How about taking $10bn out of the Renewable Energy Fund, axing the DCC, stopping compensation for a tax that no longer exists,then there is an increase in tax revenue they will get as companies get some certainty, invest in the nation, stop moving work overseas.

        Greg Hunt has said that the Coalition will not rip up any contracts from the Renewable Energy Fund, which means there will be substantially less than $10 billion left there.

        You say that the Coalition will stop compensation for the tax. Well, that means INCREASING income taxes, and cutting family tax benefits, old age pensions, Newstart, Youth Allowance, Austudy.

        Do you think any of those things will be politically popular?

        No more pink batts, no more 800k tin sheds built in schools. Oh yes, the Coalition would need to axe some solar and wind schemes, that will really break the nations heart eh? And if the Coalition still pander to the renewables, never fear, they will be savaged and lobbied to put in policies that make sense.

        Jo, the school buildings and pink batts schemes have finished! All that money has been spent. You can’t get back money that has been spent and spend it again.

        Your point merely underscores how deceitful, arrogant and nasty the ALP are. They have no respect for Australian voters which is exactly why they are bombing in the polls. Hello 30%?

        I respect your position Jo, but you haven’t explained at all where the Coalition will magically get $13 billion to buy back a heap of carbon permits.

        At a bare minimum the Coalition should say what spending they are going to cut and / or which taxes they will increase to fund ending the ETS.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          No Adam, the Coalition don’t have to do anything right now. The ALP are running the government, not the Libs. The ALP need to explain why they are bringing in a scheme that most voters voted against, and why they are loading it with a $13 bn dollar bomb, which the will of the people can’t (according to you) choose through another vote — not to “waste”. If Tony Abbott is forced to defuse the bomb, the ALP will get all the blame for any cuts that have to happen.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    David

    Back here in The Old Country we have, of course, gone a stage further than you guys by passing the Climate Change Act.
    As I understand it, and I haven’t read the detail, this Act will presumably actually REVERSE ‘climate change’, bacause it will, by 2050 (I’ll be a jar of cinders by then, thankfully) have reduced carbon emissions by 80%. Yep – you read it right; 80%.
    I’m also assuming that there is a clause in there somewhere that decrees that the wind will blow steadily, 24/7, across the UK at 25 knots, because by 2020 (even), wind will be providing ‘around 15% 0f electricity demand’ (statement from our dearly beloved Department of Energy and Climate Change).
    So – you see – you haven’t got a monopoly on political idiocy….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Back here in The Old Country we have, of course, gone a stage further than you guys by passing the Climate Change Act.

    The UK Climate Change Act is is the legislative frame work for the UK to meet its emissions reduction targets based on its agreement with the E.U.

    The UK won’t introduce a direct carbon price until next year. This will be relatively uncontroversial in the UK because both the Coalition government and the Labour Opposition supports it.

    As I understand it, and I haven’t read the detail, this Act will presumably actually REVERSE ‘climate change’, bacause it will, by 2050 (I’ll be a jar of cinders by then, thankfully) have reduced carbon emissions by 80%. Yep – you read it right; 80%.

    This is simply your obligation under E.U. agreement.

    I’m also assuming that there is a clause in there somewhere that decrees that the wind will blow steadily, 24/7, across the UK at 25 knots, because by 2020 (even), wind will be providing ‘around 15% 0f electricity demand’ (statement from our dearly beloved Department of Energy and Climate Change).
    So – you see – you haven’t got a monopoly on political idiocy….

    Actually, the major way the U.K. will reach its targets is through a massive expansion of nuclear power generation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Take Some Responsibility

    The beauty about a fixed-price-on-carbon / ETS, is that it achieves carbon polution reduction in the least expensive way. Contrast that with Jo’s little antics… sort of reminds me what Tony Abbot’s Direct-(in)Action scheme would be like.

    1/ Paying polluters with (yours and mine) tax’s – DIRECTLY, rather than letting the market sort it out, with money raised going back to me, you and tech development.
    2/ Planting trees over an area the size of Victoria and Tasmania combined. (Has he said where the green army is comming from yet???)
    3/ Soil Sequestration – (a second green army for this one, or are we going to rely on our farmers being distracted from their core business).

    Tony has been a bit quiet about his own policies but insists he would be adhering to the same 5 percent 2020 goals that Labour has committed to. Maybe that is because they would largly mirror Jo’s efforts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      “Take Some Responsibility”,
      Please quote a scientific document which lists CARBON & CARBON DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) as pollution……….


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MAGB

    Send all complaints to Christine Milne’s Freeze a Pensioner Party.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    USA could return to 1990 levels of co2 emissions this year. All because of new technology and easier gas extraction.
    So what do the resident idiots think of this I wonder? Once again sceptics are correct and the mad religious fanatics are wrong.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/#more-66684


    Report this

    00