JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Majority of Australians want to get rid of the carbon tax. (Only 1 in 3 want to keep it).

The latest Newspoll results say that Australian voters want Clive Palmer to stop blocking the repeal of the carbon tax.

[The Australian]  A Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Australian after last Thursday’s chaos in the Senate saw the repeal bills rejected, reveals 53 per cent want the controversial tax to be abolished.

Only 35 per cent want the Palmer United Party to continue to block the removal of the tax, while 12 per cent are uncommitted.

So one third of Australia wants us to keep the carbon tax (they can always pay it voluntarily thinks Jo?)

Keeping the carbon tax is costing Australians $11 million dollars a day. There is a deadline. It’s Friday:

The electricity industry incurs $11 million a day in carbon tax charges and market-traded contracts have not been trading carbon since July 1. But a carbon price of $25.40 a tonne will be returned to the contracts if the repeal fails to pass the Senate by Friday. Mr O’Reilly said failure to achieve the repeal by Friday would complicate returning savings to customers by “an exponential amount’’.

Even 33% of Labor voters want the tax gone.

A majority of Australians aged over 35 want the carbon tax axed, with support at 58 per cent among those over 50 and at 52 per cent in the 35-49 age group.

Among voters aged 18 to 34 the numbers are closer, with 46 per cent backing the removal of the tax and 38 per cent wanting to keep it.

And what of the fracas last week when everyone thought the tax was going –  only to find last minute amendments made it unworkable:

Mr Hunt said the government had supported the Palmer United Party’s final amendment last week and the PUP senators needed to explain why they voted against the repeal. “The final version which had been ticked off by the clerk, or the umpire, of the Senate was constitutional, was about to be moved by the Palmer senators and they walked out on their own amendment and never presented that constitutional version.”

According to The Australian, PUP senator, Jaqui Lambie thought an agreement had been reached now and the repeal should be passed.

The Australian

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (64 votes cast)
Majority of Australians want to get rid of the carbon tax. (Only 1 in 3 want to keep it)., 8.9 out of 10 based on 64 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/otv5f2w

149 comments to Majority of Australians want to get rid of the carbon tax. (Only 1 in 3 want to keep it).

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    If the tax is not repealed, Tony Abbott will be able to rub the electorate’s nose in its self indulgence and folly of electing the likes of the PUP and the term “irresponsible, incompetent clowns” would seem to have a certain resonance. It would certainly be eminently repeatable just as ‘stop the boats’ and ‘great big tax’ were.

    210

  • #
    Mattb

    even PUP want the tax axed. They’re not blocking axing of the tax, they just want it axed on their terms. Ursus I’m not sure it’s PUP people are wishing they’d not elected.

    237

    • #
      Backslider

      And what would you like to see Matt?…. just out of curiosity.

      200

    • #
      Leigh

      Yes.
      Come on Matt why beat around the bush and be so mysterious?
      Why don’t you just come and say you support higher energy costs to the consumer to save the planet.
      That those higher energy costs will reduce the planets temperature by what exactly what?
      The blogs not for being mysterious Matt.
      It’s about exposing bad science for what it is.
      A carbon dioxide tax is based on bad science.
      It will do nothing to change the planets temperature.
      It will keep your gas and electricity bills artificially higher than what they should be.
      So Matt,why would I have wished I had voted for a party that supports the fraud of global warming and saddles me with a higher cost of living in support of that fraud?
      The CO/2 tax was created with no other intention other than to get it’s tentacles further into my pocket to support that fraud.
      Come on Matt, don’t be so mysterious, tell me why I should have voted differently.

      420

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Is that the sound of crickets, I hear? Hasn’t it gone very quiet?

        160

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, they’re deafening…

        Matt, while your at it please explain to us mere mortals, not glowing with the holy power of gaia running through our blessed bodies, exactly how multiplying fuel bills by a factor of 8 (thats the final outcome of $200+ a tonne), is going to make humanity more resiliant against climate extremes, either hot or cold. After all one isn’t particularly resiliant when one can’t afford heating or cooling.

        200

        • #

          Don’t worry; it’ll only make a difference of 0.004⁰C.

          Sack cloth and ashes will keep the people warm enough.

          20

          • #
            bobl

            Funny boy :-)

            But I was more thinking my aged father who is coming up to his 90th birthday might need the heater on through the solar minimum. Me, well, biomass is cheap around here, and I’m not averse to pouring a few tons of carbon particulates into the atmosphere. Might make a nice point. I’m with Greenpeace founder Pat, grow more trees, use more wood.

            10

            • #
              the Griss

              I heard that the German forests are taking a bit of a hacking, due to people burning wood instead of using electrical heating.

              More REAL pollution, and probably more CO2 to boot. (but more CO2 = GOOD, so no complaint about that)

              20

      • #
        Jon

        “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001″

        The objective is clearly to have expensive energy in small quantities?

        Why?

        00

    • #
      Mattb

      hmm lets see maybe it was something like 3am.

      What would I like? a worldwide ETS. Yes I’m as comfortable with a price on carbon as I am with a price on Cornflakes. A carbon tax… not my cup of tea but it was a handy start.

      246

      • #
        Winston

        So your perfectly willing to allow your livelihood and freedom, and the livelihood and freedom of every other poor slob on this planet, to become a bargainable commodity in the hands of some of the most amoral and rapacious people in the world, namely the global banking cartels and the financial maestros of Wall Street?

        I don’t really mind if you don’t value your own existence (feel free to sell it off to the first travelling salesman that comes knocking on your door if you so desire), or that you are stupidly trusting of people so undeserving of trust, but why does the rest of humanity have to place themselves in mortal peril just because you are blind to the consequences of your actions?

        What makes you think these people are deserving of such all-encompassing power, Matt? Don’t you have even the slightest concern that perhaps you are making the most vulnerable in the world even more vulnerable by taking this political stance, or don’t you particularly care?

        Perhaps consequences are for other people to worry about, Matt, not such pillars of the community like you.

        341

      • #

        Ah Mattb,

        you’ve got no idea at all, have you. You just spout on, blubbering that an ETS will save the Planet.

        I was wondering if you might explain this for all of us, how that home of green policy South Australia reacts when the chips are down.

        Look at the table at this link, from June of 2013. Go the 2 columns for SA and look down that list. It details the cost of generating electricity in that State, the cost paid by the electricity retailers per unit of electricity generated.

        Look at 3rd July and then even just look down the page at all the days for South Australia. However, just for 3rd July, look at the cost for the Peak Period there, $866.41/MWH, and that’s the Peak Period 7AM until 10PM.

        Now, why is that so high? Well, Mattb, you can’t explain it, so let me do it for you.

        The wind wasn’t blowing on that day anywhere across your precious wind plants. No generation. So, because of that, every small to tiny plant in SA had to run, and it ended up being for days on end.

        Those plants cost a fortune to run, and why?

        Because now they have to budget in the cost of the CO2 they emit.

        They are usually only scheduled to run for 2 to 4 hours a day, and they budget their whole year around those times.

        Now, with no wind, they have to run for days on end, blowing their yearly budget right out of the water. Under an ETS, they would have to pay for those emissions, then add on an extra cost to make up for the extra, then pay a fine at 1.5 times the extra, and then have the extra taken off next year’s emissions, penalised four times over.

        So, imagine when the government minister gets on the blower asking why the plant is not supplying when it is needed the most.

        That happened here, and the plant was probably just told to supply power and, umm, someone, somewhere, would make it up to them.

        So here we have a precious Labor State Government ignoring totally any intent of a CO2 Tax slash ETS because there would be hell to pay when someone from the government came on the radio attempting to explain why there had to be power cuts in the State, because they needed to lower those CO2 emissions.

        Oh, and why did this happen?

        Well, you see South Australia made the decision that after the end of Summer, they didn’t need to run their one remaining coal fired power plant to supply electricity into the grid, so it was shut down.

        Then, along came no wind, other plants pleaded with to run, no matter what the cost, and electricity costs spiked to the levels you see here.

        And, umm, sometime later that Month, and very quietly too, with no fanfare at all, the, err, dreaded coal fired plant ran back up to supply all that wonderful power back into the SA grid.

        That is what happens under an ETS Mattb, an ETS you and your big green followers all agree with.

        Under your wishes, situations like this will become all the more prevalent, and costs will then have to be passed down to all consumers rather than the government quietly covering it out of fear for it showing what would really happen.

        Mattb, it’s people like you, uninformed people, ignorant of the facts, and unwilling to even find out those facts who will be the death of us all, figuratively speaking.

        And you Mattb, well, as you say, you’re comfortable with that, nay happy about it.

        I sneer in your general direction!

        Tony.

        551

        • #
          Mattb

          TONY: that’s not got much to do with an ETS tony. I’d have an ETS and that’s that. No renewable energy subsidies, no RET, no direct action costs just an ets. A small impost on the cost of electricity supply, no different to if the supply cost of coal went up.

          WINSTON: “So your perfectly willing to allow your livelihood and freedom, and the livelihood and freedom of every other poor slob on this planet, to become a bargainable commodity in the hands of some of the most amoral and rapacious people in the world, namely the global banking cartels and the financial maestros of Wall Street?”

          Unfortunately we are all bargainable commodities in the hands of some of the most amoral and rapacions people in the world. I’m all for new world order etc etc but yes in the context of the economic system we have an ETS is a good fit. Let’s say there is no ETS/Price on carbon – well the economy is still run the same way by the same assholes you fear.

          A desire to replace that is probably the strongest synergy between the tea party and the far left. There is a strong libertarian tradition in some sections of the greenies that should be encouraged.

          031

          • #

            Let’s say there is no ETS/Price on carbon – well the economy is still run the same way by the same assholes you fear.

            Good reasoning Matt. That’s like saying – Cholera – who cares? You’ll die of something. Why try to prevent it?

            There are some white collar psychopaths high in the finance sector. Matt wants to feed them?

            320

            • #
              Mattb

              I don’t think it is like saying that at all. If your concern is white collar psychopaths then you need to tackle that problem a bit more directly though. I mean they are getting their way with the Freedom of Financial Advice or whateve amendments the govt is pushing through.

              315

              • #
                the Griss

                The main concern for the world is the green collar psychopaths, like yourself.

                They will bring the developed world to its knees if they can.

                10

              • #
                James Bradley

                Mattb,

                There has to be a purpose for a financial impost other than taking money from the many to put into the pockets of the few.

                ETS, RET and Carbon Tax have no other function other than remove money from the pockets of the many for the profit of the few.

                Why should we agree with a finacial burden that contributes nothing other than a bounty for the already wealthy/greedy.

                20

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Your faith in your leaders will be your downfall. You obviously aren’t old and wise, or ever read a history book.

            120

          • #

            Mattb, you say here:

            A small impost on the cost of electricity supply

            Again you show you total inability to grasp facts.

            Look down that supplied list.

            All existing coal fired power plants here can generate electricity for between $25 and $30 per MWH without an ETS in place.

            Again, check that list. There are 6 days in this Month alone and a further 23 in the Months around that linked Month where electrical power generating costs were greater than retailers could sell that electricity into the market ….. at RETAIL, not just for a short spiked time frame, but for full 24 hour days, and days on end.

            While government here obviously covered those extra imposts for fear of the public beginning to put two and two together, the time will come when those costs WILL be either passed down directly to all consumers, or blackouts will be put in place.

            If you have a power plant forced to run (by threat) and then forced to put up with those 4 penalties, then the plant will just go under, and then there will be NO electricity.

            Read what I said Mattb, and try, just try, and grasp what is being said.

            It is ONLY about an ETS CO2 Tax.

            You can obfuscate all you like, but as you said yourself, this is what you are comfortable with Mattb.

            You read what you want and if it’s not what you want to hear, then you just ignore it.

            You’ve been sprung for the hypocrite you are.

            Tony.

            310

            • #
              Mattb

              Tony again that’s got nothing to do with a price on carbon. It has to do with general crap regulations around the sector.

              018

              • #

                Mattb,

                Huh! You really do have no idea about how an ETS works.

                I thought you were funnin’ around, you know, just stirring the pot.

                Seriously, you need to read things other than what your masters tell you to read.

                Tony.

                191

              • #
                Mattb

                well tony maybe your usual delivery style doesn’t work for me. It’s just what I’m getting from you is that even without an ETS/Tax the electricty supply settings are a bit screwed. A price on carbon doesn’t mean “electrical power generating costs were greater than retailers could sell that electricity into the market ….. at RETAIL, not just for a short spiked time frame, but for full 24 hour days, and days on end.”

                If it does, then ploise exploin how?

                017

              • #
                Bulldust

                You do understand MattB, that under an ETS the number of permits would be gradually decreased despite market demand for electricity increasing (unless we close down more industry, I guess). So therefore the market will be pushed into options that are increasingly expensive. It rachets up quickly because of the pincer effect of increased demand for decreasing numbers of permits.

                That’s until you go international with the permits, and we’ve seen how well that works in the EU with all the rorts reported there. With global markets the potential for fraud grows astronomically. Besides, China dwarfs our emissions, so any gesture we make is simply that … a gesture. Meanwhile China is flipping us off with both hands, and India, and Russia, and Brazil etc etc etc

                BTW I suggest reading Freakonomics or Superfreakonomics to get a feel for how crooked some humans are … or perhaps watching “Inside job” a few times till it sinks in. Let’s not feed the vampire squids, eh? I for one am not a surrender monkey.

                As an aside I would support some research money into alternative generation technologies, but until they can provide cheap and reliable grid power, I ain’t interested. I think it would be wonderful if we could one day paint our buildings in solar electricity-generating paint … I can fantasise it. Perhaps some smartypants will figure it out some day. Self-assembling solar nanobots in the paint or sumptin’ like that…

                111

              • #
                bobl

                And of course the scientifically illiterate MattB still can’t tell Carbon from Carbon Dioxide. Matt, for your information Carbon Dioxide is transparent gaseous plant food. Carbon is a black solid plant growing medium (assuming a spattering of other nutrients too).

                Actually I think I’ll claim a refund because Ive been overcharged for my carbon since the carbon is only 12/44ths of my emission I should have paid only %6.55 per tonne of CO2 for the carbon bit. What a rip off, I resent paying $17.45 per tonne for the oxygen bit.

                Also, your betters in the Green Party machine seem to want a Carbon Dioxide price of around $200 / tonne don’t they? multiplying wholesale electricity cost by about 8? It’s clearly OK in your world for grannies and babies to die because they can’t afford heating or cooling. Yup, the public’s gonna go for that Matt NOT!

                The sooner the ETS/Tax is toast the better

                110

              • #

                I’m right. You really don’t get it.

                OK then, very slowly now.

                A small gas fired plant normally operates for two or three hours a day during Peaking Power times, usually the late afternoon and early evening. So, with the introduction of a tax on CO2 emissions, they know for certain that they will use X amount of fuel, the Natural Gas, and that emits Y amount of CO2.

                They then multiply that by 250 to 270, the number of work days in a year, because that’s when power consumption is at its highest, and they then know roughly how much CO2 they emit, and then multiply that by the price on CO2.

                Now, knowing how much power they generate, in MWH, they then divide that into the cost they are charged for the CO2 tax, and that gives them the added extra they have to charge to put their electricity into the market, electricity purchased by the retailers at wholesale, and then sold on to all consumers, after the retailers then add on all the extras.

                Now, all of a sudden, because there was no wind power for what was close on 48 hours on the date in question, and all those other days around those three Months, well, instead of running for just two/three hours a day, they had to run virtually non stop for close on three days or so, 72 hours. They now had to purchase extra NG, at a premium, because it was outside their normal operating amount of contracted gas supply, so the price spiked because of that. Then, now running for close on 72 hours, the equivalent of 24 to 30+ days or more of normal CO2 emissions, their emissions spiked by that amount. Now, they could just tell the by now desperate government minister that they have well and truly exceeded their allowable normal emissions, considering that when if the wind blows back to normal, then they go back to normal operation of their two/three hours a day. That yearly budget of CO2 emissions is well and truly blown out of the water. Then, they need to purchase the extra emissions, pay the 1.5 times fine, and have the extra deducted from next year’s emissions, a triple penalty on top of the extra they had to pay for gas supply.

                ALL of those are added costs, especially the monetary penalties for the extra usage and emissions.

                Someone has to pay for that, so it’s added on to the cost per unit for the electricity they deliver to the grid, power purchased by the retailers, who then either pass it on, or attempt to absorb it, and this sort of attempting to absorb that would get very costly on this scale.

                Otherwise they would just turn their plant off after their normal operation of two/three hours and let the State go into blackouts, and perish the minister or the government who allows that to happen, and who knows what sort of deals were done here from desperation.

                Now, while this is for just the one plant as an example, multiply that by every small and tiny plant as all of them are needed to fill the gap because there was no wind on these occasions.

                That’s what happened here Mattb.

                Without a Tax on CO2 or a proposed ETS, then this is the scenario, every time the wind stops.

                Now, MattB, was that comprehensive enough for you.

                But hey, you really don’t want to try and understand this do you?

                It’s just my making a political point, isn’t it? Well, Mattb, it ‘aint.

                Did any of that sink in?

                Also, perhaps now you can also attempt to see why wind power is so damned expensive. Costs more to generate when the wind blows, and even more again when the wind doesn’t blow.

                Tony.

                171

              • #
                Mattb

                Tony I repeat that has nothing to do with an ETS. It has to do with regular supply issues of a generation network. There were intermittent wind energy sources well before there was a carbon tax, and I’m not sure why a gas power station is not smart enough to at least factor in that they’ll need some extra gas because the wind does not always blow. You know that and I know that so I assume the guys who actually run the plants know?

                012

              • #
                Mattb

                And Tony I’d like to note that you and I literally for YEARS have agreed on your basic points re: electricity generation. So I agree with pretty much everything you say here, other than it having anything to do with an ETS/TAX.

                07

              • #

                You really don’t understand a word of it do you? Can’t you actually read?

                Take away the CO2 Tax, or the proposed ETS and ….. NONE of this happens.

                I give up. You obviously just speak from what you assume is a position of authority and expect us to just take it, and then go la la la when facts are inconvenient for you.

                I’ve never met anyone who can’t won’t understand.

                Go talk to yourself.

                Tony.

                111

              • #
                Mattb

                “NONE of this happens.”

                Why doesn’t it happen? There are power stations that provide power, and need to source fuel. If they need to buy more then they buy more maybe at a premium depending on how decent their forward planning is.

                Love it or loathe it a carbon tax/ets is simply an additional cost it does not physically make wind less reliable or increase the price of gas on the spot market.

                Do you mean the RET? I mean I can see how having a RET may do this as it mandates a less predictable generation sector.

                110

              • #
                Mattb

                And Bulldust that’s all good and well, but it’s not got much to do with what Tony’s on about.

                08

              • #
                Raven

                Why doesn’t it happen? There are power stations that provide power, and need to source fuel. If they need to buy more then they buy more maybe at a premium depending on how decent their forward planning is.

                Love it or loathe it a carbon tax/ets is simply an additional cost it does not physically make wind less reliable or increase the price of gas on the spot market.

                In the scenario Tony’s talking about, the gas fired power stations are buying extra fuel to cover the times the wind doesn’t blow.

                It occurs to me that the problem belongs to the wind generator, not the gas fired plant owner.
                The wind generation company should be footing the bill for the extra gas !

                40

              • #
                Mattb

                Raven I agree… But that has absolutely nothing to do with carbon tax or ETS. Nada. Zip.

                02

              • #
                bobl

                But Matt it does!

                All Tony has said is that using your favourite intermittent power sources in a regime that includes an ETS (or tax) results in an interplay where costs spiral out of control if the wind or sun forecast is wrong. If they use up their supply of certificates, it becomes very expensive to cover the emissions. The price of power in hot still weather goes up due to more expensive permit prices and penalties and grannies die. And it’s even worse in cold still weather, although that’s not quite as common in SA. The roaring 40′s are cold and cold weather is rarely still.

                This uncertainty is then all built into SA power prices, so that SA power is much more expensive than it should be…. did I say that causes grannies and babies to die in winter and sometimes summer? Of course we can avoid all this ETS price volatility, I say shed power instead, let the population experience the truly magnificent flavour of renewable energy, and see how long the love affair with renewable energy continues, Matt, I’ll be sure to nominate you for first onto the shedding schedule, I’m sure that’s the way you’d want it.

                Without the ETS, there are no additional permits, or penalties to cover.

                10

              • #
                Mattb

                unsubstantiated fear mongering.

                that is no more relevant if there were no ETS as someone is still buying the extra gas on a possibly inflated spot market (if they were too thick to plan how many they need). Which is my point the ETS is irrelevant in such cases.

                power station’s fortunately actually employ professionals to forward plan their fuel stock needs over the long term accounting for possible fluctuations in short term demand.

                01

              • #
                the Griss

                “unsubstantiated fear mongering. “

                aHHH.. The climate agenda writ large !!!

                The whole thing with global warming/climate change/whatever they call it next…….. is …..

                unsubstantiated fear mongering.

                There is absolutely no need and no purpose to ANY of the carbon tax, and ETS, the RET etc..

                ….except to further the green socialist totalitarian agenda.

                Which is of course why Mattb is all for some of it.

                30

          • #
            manalive

            A small impost on the cost of electricity supply, no different to if the supply cost of coal went up …

            A small impost?
            What is the purpose then, what is the point?

            40

            • #
              Mattb

              the point is to reflect the cost of emissions. Pretty simple.

              011

              • #
                manalive

                the point is to reflect the cost of emissions. Pretty simple …

                Simpleminded you mean.
                There are no costs to emissions, only benefits.

                120

      • #
        Leigh

        Like the attempted name change from global warming to climate change.
        When the planet just flatly refuse to burn up.
        Or refering to skeptics as deniers in an incidious attempt to link them to holocaust deniers.
        It won’t work Matt.
        It is not a “carbon” tax.
        Attempting to link it to the black sooty stuff that comes out of the exhaust stack of a truck is “again” being “tricky”with words.
        It is a living breathing tax on “carbon dioxide”.
        A harmless invisible necessity of life on this planet.
        Affectively a plant food.
        Abbreviating it to the highly emotive “carbon” tax just won’t wash with Australian public any more.

        130

        • #
          Mattb

          I’m not a hard core fan of a carbon tax though Leigh, so you;ve no argument from me.

          16

          • #
            Leigh

            And an ETS?
            I’m having trouble trying to understand why your happy to have China and India just to mention two.
            Burn our coal and not be taxed to do so.
            Yet your happy to see us wear a millstone of financial burden around our necks.
            For what?
            And Tonyfromoz, your scaring the crap out of me.

            80

        • #
          James Bradley

          Mattb,

          The Carbon Tax is a tax, in fact it is the Tax Nirvana governmants once only dreamed of, it is a tax on the air we breathe, dressed up in eco-green to camouflage its true intent – to make it palatible – it serves no other purpose other than revenue.

          131

  • #

    Without a carbon tax or ETS people may be able to afford to have the old clunker tuned or a higher rent closer to work. Without the Carbon Tax or ETS people may be able to afford efficiency improvements to their homes like a sky light or modern economical refrigerator. Without a carbon tax or ETS burning old tyres in the fireplace may not be required for heating. Without a carbon tax or ETS farmers may be able to afford to bury large volumes of silage for a non rainy day. Without a carbon tax or ETS the ball and chain industry that parasites via them may do something productive instead or at least switch it’s lights off…

    473

  • #

    Democracy and promises are not what matters. What does matter is agreeing with the consensus, as Clive Palmer was no doubt reminded by expert climate scientist and (nearly) US President Al Gore a week ago.

    170

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      On what terms?

      60

    • #
      Raven

      . . . as Clive Palmer was no doubt reminded by expert climate scientist and (nearly) US President Al Gore a week ago.

      Yeah . . that meeting had me confused for a while, but now I’ve figured it out.
      The only reason Clive met up with Al Gore was to conscript another dinosaur to his collection. ;-)

      20

  • #
    Matty

    So one third of Australia wants us to keep the carbon tax (they can always pay it voluntarily thinks Jo?)

    Very droll. I’m sure it’s not for their own contribution they want it kept, but for the very much bigger contribution they percieve from others.
    What proportion of citizens believe themselves to be net beneficiaries of the Carbon Tax ?

    110

    • #

      What proportion of citizens believe themselves to be net beneficiaries of the Carbon Tax ?

      The people who have been duped into thinking that natural climate change can somehow be improved without a life giving gas that may even help the situation.

      200

      • #
        Matty

        I was rather thinking just about those duped into believing they’d be given more in rebates than it would cost them. The financially aware but politically naive , rather than the plain stupid.

        180

    • #
      bobl

      I can pretty much guarantee that it’s not the subset of the population that invested in geodynamics or solyndra

      50

  • #
    TdeF

    A grandiously named free market sounding “Emissions Trading Scheme” is the fall back scam for the Labor party and their masters, the Greens. What is traded? Carbon taxes. Compulsory carbon taxes. So much for the promised “Termination” or a tax we were promised we would never have.

    Much, much worse, our taxes are set by bankers and governments overseas and all the money goes overseas. Brilliant! Beggar thy neighbour. No wonder the economists and bankers and the UN/IPCC love it. They all get part of the action. We as a country offer to pay taxes overseas, surrendering our sovereign right to raise taxes. Others get to tax us at any rate they choose and on everything we do, because as carbon lifeforms, everything we do involves carbon.

    How does it affect the planet’s temperature? Not at all. It is a wealth transfer system. For the UN, it is manna from heaven, which is why NZ Labor PM Helen Clarke is third in charge, the job Julia Gillard wanted for also bringing in a Carbon tax.

    So why would Labor continue to push such a terrible impost on all Australians? Check the last election results in Australia. Of the coalition, 45 were elected outright on first preferences, but only 8 of the ALP. The other 48 ALP were elected on Green preferences so they do what they are told. We were promised absolutely no carbon taxes by the ALP. Twice. So with only one Green in the House of Representatives, the dedicated communist Adam Bandt, they control the parliament.

    The absurdity of carbon taxes continues, the new world order as dictated by Green parties around the world, who care nothing for the environment and everything for power. Is it about trees? No, it is all about their hatred for the West, especially Israel and the US and their demand that we destroy our own right to select who comes to our country. Chaos.

    You can read Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout by Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founder who talks of when in the late 1980′s the communists turned up at Greenpeace in their berets and camouflage to attack the West. He had to leave.

    Now you can see the Green windmills across Europe, a massive blight on the landscape and even through the oceans of the Baltic. Most windmills are not spinning but no one cares. They are religious icons, like Stonehenges. What good was a henge? The same as a windfarm, patterns of impossible, useless religious structures to appease the Gods.

    Yes 1/3 of Australians think a carbon tax is a good idea. Why is beyond logic.

    471

    • #
      Greg

      “The absurdity of carbon taxes continues, the new world order as dictated by Green parties around the world, who care nothing for the environment and everything for power.”

      You must be the only fool outside the green movement that believes that.

      The AGW scare-scam and the UN climate fund they are hoping to impose in Paris next year, is to be the treasury to fund unelected world world government.

      Once that is in place the enviros will soon find they have no place at the table. They are the useful idiots of the game.

      Rest assured, this is not a “communitst plot” run by militant greens. It’s wealth redistribution alright, but it will not be the poor to whom it is redistributed.

      260

      • #
        Manfred

        It’s good to see people articulating the drama. As Greg stated, the UN income derived from ETS forms a central plank in the lurch toward global governance. Indeed, the population of countries might eventually be taxed in a manner reflective of the putative CO2 burden their exhaling population imposes…..so, in the Orwellian nightmare of “Save the Planet’ the drive to reduce population will no longer be required, and as already alluded to, neither will the sock puppet, ship of fools, ethical non-fossil fuel investing, windmill powered Greenies, who can’t seem to understand that our windmill corn grinding ancestors gave it up, thankfully and with relief a long time ago with the development of more reliable power sources. The Green Agenda (in their own words), greed and stupidity absolutely guarantee their unsustainable destiny.

        But the creeping centrism is rampant elsewhere. I observe a ‘strategic’ drive by aspects of the UN WHO to ‘manage’, ‘implement’ and ‘integrate’ aspects of healthcare in a global manner, without any mandate from the rank and file anywhere. ‘Representative’ committees are anything but, the individuals of which swan about in a narcissistic bubble of hedonism, intoxicated by their own sense of grandeur and global vision hallucination, delusion, rushing in pseudo-urgency from policy meeting to policy meeting, busily fabricating idiotic ‘reports’ to sustain the junket, which PC regulators in individual countries peddle without critical analysis.

        As an example of a human perpetual motion machine, such things are by definition doomed to demonstrate unsustainability.

        180

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, Greg whether it’s world government as per Greens party Policy or just “team UN World Police” doesn’t matter, intentional or otherwise this is an attempt to test a “tax by treaty” funding concept for the UN. Countries don’t want to fund the UN out of general revenue, they want to be able to pass the cost straight to us, and the UN is trying to facilitate that. One fly in that sticky ointment, the masses don’t like being taxed for air very much.

        160

    • #
      Leigh

      “Check the last election results in Australia. Of the coalition, 45 were elected outright on first preferences, but only 8 of the ALP. The other 48 ALP were elected on Green preferences”
      And that is bloody scary.
      Andrew Robb this last weekend has pointed out that the current impasse with Palmer is not what people should be directing their anger at.
      The labor party said before the last election the would also repeal the CO/2 tax.
      With the same caveat that Palmer is demanding.
      So why isn’t the media applying the same scrutiny and blowtorch to Shorten and co?
      Seriously, I know no one, no one who admits to voting for the greens.
      But some one obviously does.
      An ETS.

      150

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The labor party sa1id before the last election the would also repeal the CO/2 tax.

        Who would beleive anything Labor said at that point?

        60

  • #
    Eddie

    “The final version which had been ticked off by the clerk, or the umpire, of the Senate was constitutional, was about to be moved by the Palmer senators and they walked out on their own amendment and never presented that constitutional version.”

    If that is true, are the PUP Senators just intent on extending their moment of fame, of notoriety ? I mean who had heard of them outside Aus. before ( apart from the Goracle of course).

    110

  • #

    Oh like the ones with a non CPI linked solar price, inaccessable leaky roof tiles and a squeely box on the wall that are in denial about what the fire brigade will do if they turn up.

    80

    • #

      My 3:22AM was a reply to Matty at 3:09 Am (the threading bug got me!).

      30

    • #
      Matty

      Got it . No, not greedy the bourgeoise who thought they might actually get ahead. Just the poor who Juliar duped into believing the Carbon Tax was to help them survive.

      30

    • #
      Richo

      Not to mention the collateral damage to neighbours delicate electronic equipment from power spikes from the panels because the electrical grid is not designed for the inputs from all these micro generators. Not to mention the fortune you have to pay to buy surge protectors to protect your electronic equipment from these panels. I have already had gear burn out from neighbours panels. Maybe time for some class action against idiots with solar panels.

      82

      • #
        StefanL

        Richo,
        Thanks for the warning. I’ll keep an eye out on the roofs in my street and look for correlations.
        Now a genuine question:
        Do you think the surges/spikes are an inherent consequence of solar panels or could it be that your neighbours have installed Chinese cheapies ? I’m thinking that a class action may have a greater chance of success if the focus is on the inferior quality of the particular panels that are causing grief, rather than on solar panels in general. If that first step works, then the anti-panel campaign can be ratcheted up.

        30

        • #
          Richo

          Could possibly be both. The electrical grid in your local street is normally controlled from transformers on the main distribution grids but with all these micro generators (solar panels)there is nothing in the local networks to control all the power inputs from these micro generators during peak generation periods on very sunny days hence spikes are caused. Also, with these dodgy imported solar panels they could cause spikes when the inverters on the panels fail.

          41

  • #
    Stephen Fox

    As a Pom to whom Oz politics are not too clear, wtf is the meaning of a party NAMED AFTER ITS LEADER?
    I’ve never heard of the like anywhere. Why doesn’t someone tell this Palmer t**t where to get off?
    Before you all descend on me from a great height, yes, Brit politics are sh*te too :)

    170

    • #
      Backslider

      As pointed out in another thread they are gonna nail him. (Google the headline if you get paywalled)

      40

    • #
      Greg

      I’ve heard this stupid argument a few too many times.

      What to do you think parties should be called?

      Perhaps Labour (UK) that are a capitalist party. Or maybe UK Conservative that under Thatcher were more revolutionary “free market” than conservative.

      If all you have to judge politics on is whether you like the name, you should probably STFU.

      111

      • #
        Yonniestone

        “STFU” really? Stephen asked a question then made light of the idea and your apparently so superior in political analysis you are arrogant enough to suggest he “STFU”

        Did you miss a sarc/ tag or just acting out with your political bias?, whatever it is keep it in context of the question thanks.

        81

    • #
      pattoh

      No Stephen, they are ALL palmers ( Mrs Palmer & her five daughters etc.)

      OUT & PROUD IN PUBLIC!!!!!

      41

    • #
      Nathan

      I’m with you on this SF. Only an egotist would name a political party after himself but that’s not really up for debate anyway. It’s very clear that Palmer is there for himself. He did start with another name that was rejected by the electoral office. something like The Australia Party. He would have been better to change to Special Party for Egotists With Grudges Against Tony Etc

      SPEWGATE

      20

  • #
    Stephen Fox

    Btw,
    Well done for electing Abbott.

    91

  • #
    Gary Meyers

    What is going on with the debate over the delay/notch theory? Is everyone too busy with checking out the code and model to comment?

    60

    • #
      Backslider

      The trolls appear to have pulled their heads in. Everybody else is doing as you say I would expect (or at least trying to get their heads around it).

      60

    • #
      Gary Meyers

      Oops! Make that notch-delay.

      30

    • #
      Greg

      I suspect we will not hear much more about the notch delay idea.

      The notch was a misinterpretation based on erroneous assumptions, and rather hard to imagine as physical climate process.

      The tentative explanation for the delay required by the non-physical notch filter was a fudge.

      The huge, hitherto undocumented ‘nuclear test’ phenomenon was another fudge factor.

      It’s not beyond the realms of possibility but when you have to start fudging like that from the outset, it’s not a sign that the model is an efficient and parsimonious description of the system.

      There is a circa 10y lag in cross-correlation and David has said he wants to include my CC plot showing that. But unless David addresses some of these issues, I don’t see it getting much further interest.

      The overall aim of producing an alternative explanation for the mangled and “corrected” climate record is an interesting one.

      If it cam morph into some kind of open source platform for climate twiddling it may be interesting. Though I suspect anyone who can not code and needs to rely on working in a spreadsheet is unlikely to have the expertise to come up with something useful.

      Climate in immensely complex and I find it hard to see anyone without some good understanding of feedbacks and O.D.E’s being able to put something useful together.

      Sometime an innocent untrained ( uncontaminated ) mind can have a eureka moment but there will be mountain of chaff to wade through to find it.

      026

      • #
        the Griss

        So Greg, seems you misunderstood the whole process.

        So be it. Go back to the beginning and read it all again,

        including answers to things you have said.

        There is more to come.. and the alarmistas will HATE it when it turns out to be fundementally correct. :-)

        101

      • #
        Nathan

        Wow! Did I just read a deluded challenge to Clive Palmer’s ego?

        20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Yes, a superior mind Nathan. Read it and weep. We’re all deluded fools for even hoping that there could be an alternative hypothesis theory that explains the climate. I feel so feeble right now.

          30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Why do I hear the shuffling of feet as all the CO2 Climate Change fraternity seek to close ranks?

        The Climate Change Models work from a bottom up philosophy that has evolved out of Computer Science. In Computer Science, you look for the data required to solve a particular problem. “What would we need to know about the drivers of weather systems in order to model the Global Climate?”. The commercial version of that would be, “What do we need to know about our customers, and the products they buy, and when, and in what volumes, to be able to model our product production and distribution schedules?” In the commercial world, it is relatively easy to identify all of the variables required to make the models robust. When working with a chaotic system, such as the climate, it is not so easy, because many of the required “variables” are yet to be identified, or are ignored entirely. This is why it seems easier to change the input data, rather than find out what it is, that you don’t actually know.

        Engineering Models do not work in the same way that Computer Science models do. In the engineering world, you frequently have highly complex signals that are made up from a large number of interacting frequencies of varying strengths, that may come into phase, at times, and go out of phase, at other times. The Engineering philosophy is to take these complex signals and analyse them to determine the underlying frequencies, and then identify what, in the real world, would produce a signal at each of the identified frequencies. The climate can also be viewed as one of these highly complex signals.

        The engineering tool that does that, is the mathematical process of Fourier Analysis. What that analysis produces is a list of all of the constituent frequencies with their relative amplitudes. If the input signal is purely random “white noise” then you will get every frequency appearing in the output. But if it is not random, then you will identify significantly important frequencies. The next task is to identify the potential source(s) (or suppressants) for each of those frequencies. Dr Evans is one of the leading experts in this field of analysis, and he has identified a number of significantly important frequencies, one of which acts as a ten to twelve year delay — the notch-delay hypothesis.

        So whereas Climate Scientists could find no direct relationship between the solar cycles, and the climate cycles, there is, according to Dr Evans, a correlation between the delayed solar cycles and the subsequent climate cycles.

        So you are correct, it is an immensely complex situation. For we now have an alternative source for climate change, in the delayed solar cycle, that does not require the presence of CO2 as a driver (although CO2 may still have some minor impact).

        The notch-delay is physical — it is used to produce reverberation on music recordings, and a principle that works at audio frequencies will work throughout the frequency spectrum, so your claim that is was “a fudge” was misguided, if not mischievous.

        You are also misguided in implying the “hitherto undocumented ‘nuclear test’ phenomenon”, was “another fudge.” The impact on the atmosphere from the atmospheric test is well documented, especially in regard to the impact on the Ionosphere and the resulting disruption of radio transmission “tunnelling” in the High Frequency band. It correlates with one of the significant atmospheric frequencies that Dr Evans has identified. Nobody (apart from a few Climate Scientists, seeking to point score), has tried to claim causation at this stage, other than remark on the significant amount of dust that was thrown into the high troposphere by the blasts, as being a potential contributing factor.

        I think it is sad that you argue from a position that the science is settled. It is not. We have an alternate hypothesis, and it is up to you, and the other anthropogenic cause adherents, to demonstrate where the physics is incorrect, and do so by arguing in the particular, and not in terms of vague generalities.

        210

        • #
          the Griss

          The thing is, you cannot build a bottom-up model unless you know EVERY possible forcing factor.

          And certainly not by discounting one of the obviously main factors.. ie the sun.
          and over-emphasising another ie CO2

          The approach that David has taken does not have to isolate all, or in fact any, of the forcing factors, just the combined end effect.

          An interesting and novel approach, that should be applauded, no matter how it turns out.

          90

        • #
          ianl8888


          You are also misguided in implying the “hitherto undocumented ‘nuclear test’ phenomenon”, was “another fudge.”

          It is indeed a fudge,or kludge (the descriptor I prefer), but no more so than aerosols, clouds, volcanics and other known phenomena that have very fuzzy metrics. The latter group here are often used by AGW modellers to “explain” the temperature drop in the 1950-60′s, but the nuclear option may be just as viable (or unviable). For my money, that issue can never be determined, it’s all probabilistic

          The core to Evans hypothesis lies in its’ predictive ability. If this proves accurate, a new, testable theory may have been born. (The CO2 hypothesis has demonstrated no predictive skill at all). An issue that I suspect may take the edge off predictive capacity is that in a multi-coupled, non-linear, dynamic system, unpredictable chaos may mask any significant change, plus or minus, to the point of insignificance. Then we are in exactly the same boat we have always been

          40

      • #

        Greg, not so. On the solar-model — we are just getting started. We have a lot of material still to release. We’re going to explain why it’s a physical model, we’re going to fill out more detail on feedbacks, on evidence supporting the 10 year lag, and start the discussion on nukes.

        I was a nuclear skeptic too, but apart from argument from incredulity, no one has provided any physical reasons why 503 atmospheric bomb tests would not have some cooling effect. So it’s no more a “fudge factor” than CO2 is. The real debate is about how much cooling they would do. Then there is a whole ‘nother discussion about other factors that could go into the model that might produce a better fit without the nukes being so influential.

        The notch filter is based on a physical pattern between TSI and Earths Temperature. The mechanism is up for speculation, but the pattern is a physical one. Of course, if there is no causal link between TSI and Earths temperature then the notch is spurious. So if you have any evidence that TSI can not possibly be a leading indicator of some other effect coming off the sun at a one cycle delay, then we are all ears.

        140

        • #
          the Griss

          I still think WWII would have thrown enough junk into the upper atmosphere to have started that cooling a bit earlier. ;-)

          20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            TNT explosives, of the type used in WWII, would not be capable of putting junk into the upper troposphere. I am not so sure about the two atomic bombs deployed against Japan, but compared to the nuclear tests that followed, they were tiny.

            40

        • #
          bobl

          Jo,
          I suspect that you are nearly right. The world war left a damaged society that had to rebuild much of it’s infrastructure, as well as a number of nuclear bomb tests there was also a flurry of industrial activity after WW2 which resulted in pollution over major cities never before seen. This pollution persisted in varying degrees until the introduction in most of the Western World of rules pertaining to particulate emission, and notably the replacement of biomass burning for domestic heating with electricity and clean burning gas ( culminating in the now ubiquitous and highly efficient heat pumps)- An advance the Greens would have us reverse. The consequence of the advance of electricity and pollution control is much clearer skies commencing from about the 70s on. I think this has a lot to do with what you are seeing post war.

          20

  • #
    TdeF

    Of the 33% who want to keep it, how many would want the carbon tax if it was a Coalition tax, a coalition lie? None.

    In all this you have to allow for rabid barrackers, like those Labor and Green senators who were hugging and kissing in the senate when the repeal was defeated. Was that because the planet was saved? No, it is not just about a tax, but about winning, at any cost, to us. Who really cares about the country? Certainly not the Labor and Green senators or PUP.

    There has never been a more egregious display of utterly selfish behaviour in Australian national politics than the refusal to repeal a massive tax no one wants and we were promised we would never have and which does not even make sense. The Labor/Green/PUP solution is to keep the tax, but send the money overseas. Genius.

    210

  • #
    BilB

    Everything that comes out of the Australian has to be considered to be biased garbage. The Australian, from my observations, has a long history of telling people what they should be thinking, and this ……”survey”……is more of the same. Zero credibility.

    233

    • #
      the Griss

      Biased towards REALITY,

      as opposed to biased towards the far-left like Nofacts, and the ALPBC.

      But you wouldn’t come within cooee of recognising reality, would you

      It is you that has zero credibility, Blib.

      212

    • #
      Backslider

      It’s a Newspoll, dillbrain.

      130

    • #
      Heywood

      Coming from an ABC watcher and FauxFacts reader no doubt. Now THAT is biased garbage, but you wouldn’t see it. When your thinking is so far to the left, everything seems far right.

      150

    • #
      Winston

      BilB,

      There is a considerable amount of bias in any media outlet, no matter what persuasion. If the Australian was singing from the same hymn book as the ABC and of Fauxfacts, that would not magically make their position true, or just, or reasonable.

      I find people like you especially saddening, because in spite of some apparent intelligence, you are so willing to swallow any propaganda, no matter what flavour or consistency, that is fed to you.

      The ‘truth’, if you can indulge me a certain amount of hubris to suggest is:

      All media organisations sell lies to the populace to either further an agenda, sell their product, or propagandise a cause. The truth is completely disposable and irrelevant to them, they have no conscience or desire to enlighten whatsoever, and as such they are the natural enemies of ‘We the People’.

      All politicians, no matter what political stripe, are lying dogs who would happily sell their countrymen out to indentured slavery if it could feather their own nest. They have long since abrogated any consideration to actually serving the people that elect them, “We the People’ are irrelevant to them.

      The UN is an organisation, along with its co-conspirators the IMF and World Bank, whose sole purpose is to impoverish the poor of the world with unserviceable debt, to assist in fomenting conflict for the perpetuation of global geo-political strife, facilitate the erosion of national sovereignty wherever they can through the UNHCR (whose interests are not refugees or their plight, but using them as a political tool to damage democratic western governments), and for its unelected politburo of parasites to suck the lifeblood out of human existence out of their own hedonistic and pompously megalomaniacal self-interest, and perhaps the mistaken belief that UN rule globally would be anything other than a Pyrrhic victory that would descend rapidly into totalitarian disaster for humanity.

      The time is coming very soon when this will reach a head, and I fully expect that global social breakdown of unprecedented scale is around the corner, perpetuated by people like you who would rather barrack for a side in a false dichotomy than insist on the truth, no matter what philosophy or belief system you prefer, or at what personal cost.

      171

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The interesting thing is that propaganda doesn’t even have to be credible, as long as it is delivered by somebody who is seen to be authoritative, and of a slightly higher status of the recipient.

        This is why students will believe all sorts of tosh, if it is delivered by a lecturer.

        A one time, it was assumed that academics were above all that, but that was before competitive research funding became the norm.

        40

      • #
        Greg

        The UN is an organisation, along with its co-conspirators the IMF and World Bank, whose sole purpose is to impoverish the poor of the world with unserviceable debt

        And who is destined to manage the $100 BILLION per year , EVERY YEAR Green slush fund they are hoping to set up at the Paris conference next year … ?

        10

        • #
          Winston

          One sure thing, Greg, is that the poor Zimbabwean or Ugandan farmer won’t see on red cent. In fact, obscenely- any money that does head in their general direction becomes redirected into entrenching the despot whose jackboot is standing on their throat, or as a payoff to some European and American conglomerates to boot them off their land to “offset carbon”.

          30

  • #
    handjive

    And, here is the “one in three”:

    14 July 2014, 5.52am AEST
    Ross Garnaut Q&A: “There is no doubt Australia is out of step” (the conversation)

    Q. “Globally, economic opinion seems to be coalescing around your view that market mechanisms are the way to handle climate change.”

    Garnaut offers up NO observed evidence a “market mechanism” will stop extreme global warming.

    That is because it is fraud.
    ~ ~ ~
    Via notrickszone: Big Insurance Getting Set To Use Junk Science To Gouge The Poor…”Climate Liability” Insurance
    ~ ~ ~
    Jul 9, 2014
    Natural disaster costs down so far in 2014: Munich Re
    . . .
    Garnaut is a climate fraud.

    260

    • #
      bobl

      Here, let me say this in public Gar-naught is economically illiterate when it comes to carbon trading. This is NOT libel. I believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE to trade debt for a commodity that can be created for nothing or at a profit. For example, if I plant a hectare of mangoes, I make about $6,000 per hectare off the crop even before I sell my 550 tonnes of carbon (dioxide) credits. I effectively create 550 tonnes of CO2 offsets at a $6000 P/A profit, and anyone with a spare hectare can do the same. This means that any ETS in an agricultural economy is destined for a price of ta-da… Zero. (Oh and a heavilly distorted agricultural market to boot)

      Personally I think I’ll claim my 6% of extra vegetative productivity caused by CO2 going from 370PPM to 400 PPM as well, that’s an extra 120 tonnes of free money, just for China’s extra plant food… thanks China…

      Only by cheating the public of legitimate offsets or by taxing the public (eg by instituting a floor price) can this vulnerability be avoided. Not that governments don’t cheat the public of course.

      In fact based on the clear economics I have a plan to completely bust an ETS single handedly by aggregating carbon offsets, it’s dead-set easy. Oh and I can bankrupt Al Gore and Palmers exchange at the same time, I just need to organise to bust the ETS in a single trade (Also possinle).

      Economic nonsense, pure folly, a FREE market in carbon dioxide debt (emission) is impossible. The nearly collapsed EU market doesn’t count because it’s NOT a free market, and the EU IS cheating their public to generate a price.

      20

      • #
        Greg

        The Californian Carbon Exchange disappeared down a hole after the trading price dropped to something like 2 cents per ton.

        That just pre-empted the inevitable, when it destined to reach the true market value of ZERO.

        00

        • #
          bobl

          Probably you are wrong, as I pointed out CO2 offsets can be created out of thin air at a profit providing you own arable land. That means the market price for CO2 Debt is probably negative, IE the farmers could profitably pay the Power Stations to emit more CO2 so they make more profit off the (faster growing) crop!

          10

  • #
    Joe V.

    It’s Bastille Day Today.

    Beginning of the French Revolution, 14 July 1789.

    Off with their heads, to the Marseillaisse.

    10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘(Only 1 in 3 want to keep it)’ a sizeable minority then! Some countries have elected governments on the same sort of percentages! And no doubt that figure will rise as the bleeding obvious will dawn on more and more people!

    018

  • #
    edwina

    Frankly I don’t think the CO2 debate will ever stop. Only because most do not take any trouble to differentiate some vital facts. Take the word pollution. A lot think the SMOG in China is an example of CO2 pollution rather than Fog and Smoke. Smog was a problem in Western cities a few decades ago until laws were enacted to ‘clean’ the air.

    Also,much is made of the TONS of CO2 emitted. Yet the atmosphere has a mass of about 5 quadrillion (5×10to15) 5 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes. It’s going to take a lot of CO2 to make a dent in that. I read somewhere that if CO2 reaches, say, a full 4% of the atmosphere then it really would become toxic…e.g. Apollo 13. But one would need an impossible tonnage to reach that. Spaceship Earth is not Apollo 13.

    And 4% would not create a Venus scenario that Jim Hansen rabbits on about. His NASA project to Venus was his highlight, discovering Venus’ almost total CO2 atmosphere and has made much of scaring everyone that we will be like Venus a few years down the track.

    120

    • #
      redress

      The CO2 debate will only stop when biology is again taught in schools.

      130

    • #
      StefanL

      “Frankly I don’t think the CO2 debate will ever stop.”
      Sadly, I think you’re right.
      Far too many people in Australia are innumerate and scientifically ignorant.
      I’m not talking complicated stuff, just some basics like you have touched on (e.g. difference between per cent and parts per million, difference between molecules and constituent elements, respiration/transpiration cycle etc).

      He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense” — John McCarthy, 1995.

      100

    • #
      bobl

      Actually it wasn’t so much laws as it was cheap electricity and expensive wood. Fireplace usage went out of vogue simply because it was cheaper and more convenient to use electricity particularly with heat pumps (aircon). Now direct electrical heating watt for watt is much more expensive than biomass and twice as expensive as hydrocarbons (kero or heating oil) only heat pumps remain more economical, the most efficient being about even with biomass (unless you grow your own biomass like I do) and so I fully expect a trend back to biomass/hydrocarbon burning due to expensive electricity driven by Green dogma. That’ll reverse global warming real quick as smog returns to the western world.

      40

  • #
    pat

    the third that want to keep it? politicians (mostly Labor/Green & their friends at ABC/SBS), public servants who love big government, academics who love big CAGW grants, solar & wind interests, MSM who need the advertising to stay afloat, and the Banksters. LOL.

    don’t know how much more info is in The Australian:

    14 July: Herald Sun: Staff Reporter: Banks exposed to RET risks
    The political fracas over the repeal of the carbon tax is threatening some of the nation’s largest banks, which hold almost $900 million worth of certificates designed to stimulate investment in renewable energy generation, The Australian reports.
    According to the newspaper, lenders such as ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Group and Westpac hold around 20 per cent of the 28.4 million large-scale energy certificates (LGCs) ­issued but not ­redeemed under the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme.
    The Australian reports the holdings could potentially expose the institutions to fluctuations in market price as the political uncertainty surrounding the carbon tax repeal continues to weigh.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/banks-exposed-to-ret-risks/story-fnn9c0hb-1226987783284?nk=04796554c425197ffa024862327703d8

    (behind paywall)
    14 July: Australian: Andrew White: Banks exposed to big RET risks
    AUSTRALIA’S banks are holding nearly $900 million worth of certificates designed to stimulate investment in renewable energy generation as the price of those instruments becomes captive to the political debate over green energy schemes…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/banks-exposed-to-big-ret-risks/story-fn91wd6x-1226987545944?nk=04796554c425197ffa024862327703d8

    20

  • #
    pat

    using $8bn in the headline is a bit of a beat-up, but nevertheless!!!

    14 July: Daily Telegraph: Bottle deposits green scheme comes with an $8 billion cost, secret report shows
    Exclusive: Simon Benson
    A GREEN scheme being considered by the federal and state governments to tax bottled and packaged drinks could cost consumers $8 billion a year, a secret commonwealth report has revealed.
    The proposed national container deposit scheme would impose a cost of living expense that would rival the carbon tax, the confidential report from the Council of Australian Government ­report warned.
    The March 2014 report, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, claimed a fully fledged national container deposit scheme such as that being pushed by NSW and Victoria would pass the cost of ­recycling on to consumers through higher prices…
    The report marked “official use only” has been kept under wraps since a meeting of COAG in April at which it revealed all 10 options being considered by the governments to reduce litter and boost recycling would raise prices. “The cost to consumers ranges from $88 million to $8 billion,” it said. “Consumers bear the highest cost in all options, except one where costs are borne by the government and therefore taxpayers.”…
    The report recommended against the high-cost container deposit scheme options (CDS) which would place a refundable 10c deposit on all packaged beverages which consumers could only recoup by taking the waste to ­recycling depots. It does ­however, back a cheaper $200 million option suggested by industry, in which beverage companies install public recycling bins across the country with a promise of no additional cost passed on to consumers.
    The Australian Food and Grocery Council has lobbied against the CDS, claiming it would add up to $300 a year at the check-out for an ­average consumer.
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bottle-deposits-green-scheme-comes-with-an-8-billion-cost-secret-report-shows/story-fni0cx12-1226987594973?nk=04796554c425197ffa024862327703d8

    21

    • #
      bobl

      Actually we used to have this long ago when drinks were packaged in wonderful energy intensive glass bottles. The bottles were cleaned, sterilised and reused, recycled bottles were much cheaper than new, so the overall price to consumers was negative, recyling made the product cheaper. They used to pay us to return the bottles and thousands of kids across the nation collected the bottles for pocket money and had bikes and comics because of soft drink bottle recycling.

      Beer producers on the other hand were bloody stingy.

      Maybe it’s time to go back to the future

      80

  • #
    bobl

    Sorry to hijack this threat for a mini off topic discussion but I think it’s worth it, he says erecting his soap box in the middle of the town square …

    pat
    July 14, 2014 at 9:41 am · Reply

    using $8bn in the headline is a bit of a beat-up, but nevertheless!!!

    14 July: Daily Telegraph: Bottle deposits green scheme comes with an $8 billion cost, secret report shows

    Now we have a proposed 8 BILLION dollar nanny state scheme to replace what only 40 years ago was done by hordes of schoolkids for little more than a 5c refund per bottle. Now we would call that exploitation, kids can’t even do a paper run unless they are 14 years and 9 months old!

    The discussion I’d like to have here is what’s that done to our society. When I was a kid of 10 there were many money making opportunities open to me. I could collect recyclable bottles, I could deliver papers on my bike, because that wasn’t any chore (since what was more fun than being out and about on the bike – and getting paid for it to-boot). If I was a girl (sorry to be sexist but that’s how it was) and I was 13 or so I could baby sit (Imagine that now, it’d be called child abuse to leave children in the care of a 13 year old). I could mow lawns or sweep leaves. But that’s pretty much all gone, killed by a nanny-state mentality gone mad.

    What did that do to us, was it exploitation? or was it education? Did the small business of bottle collecting prepare us for running bigger businesses later? Did the responsibility of a regular paper run, educate a work ethic into us? Did baby sitting teach us about raising kids? Did sweeping leaves or mowing a lawn for a shilling teach us something about the need to work hard for what you get? Did that shiny new bike (or more often the bike cobbled together out of used parts) bought with your own hard-earned reward the learning of a skillset necessary to be the most successful generation in history?

    CAGW is just a manifestation of the core problem of nanny statism, the nanny state is like jelly, it’s an amorphous mass bulges and pokes out of every crevice ready to engulf and kill any entrepreneurship that emerges. Anyone seen the movie “The blob”? that’s the nanny state. I vote that we restore to kids the rights to do these things, roll back the nanny state and see a brighter future emerge.

    I favour returning to this “Exploitation”

    170

  • #
    pat

    ***what could go wong…er wrong?

    14 July: Sky News: Carbon bill changes get Palmer nod
    The Palmer United Party (PUP) has settled on changes to the carbon tax repeal bills and expects them to pass the Senate within days.
    PUP leader Clive Palmer held talks with government figures on Monday ahead of the carbon tax repeal bills returning to the House of Representatives just after noon…
    A PUP spokesman told AAP the government had agreed to change the word ‘may’ to ‘will’ in a section relating to electricity and gas bill cuts being passed to consumers and business.
    The legislation will also specifically target electricity generators and retailers, rather than a broader range of businesses.The amendment to impose a 250 per cent penalty on businesses that do not pass on the power bill cuts remains.’Everyone has a renewed respect for each other,’ a PUP spokesman said…
    It’s now expected the bills could go back to the Senate on Monday evening and pass by Tuesday…
    Senator Leyonhjelm says he’s worried Mr Palmer might change his mind on amendments again and not act in Australia’s best interest…
    ***Senator Muir and an adviser were spotted coming out of Labor Senate leader Penny Wong’s office on Monday morning.
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/07/14/carbon-bill-changes-get-palmer-nod.html

    00

    • #
      Greg

      A PUP spokesman told AAP the government had agreed to change the word ‘may’ to ‘will’ in a section relating to electricity and gas bill cuts being passed to consumers and business.

      Well if that is the heart of the matter , good on ‘em. We all know what use a “may be passed on” would have been worth.

      00

  • #
    pat

    where’s “repeal” in the headline, AAP/SMH?

    14 July: SMH: AAP: Carbon tax to be fast-tracked through Reps
    The Abbott government wants a lower house vote on repealing the carbon tax before parliament adjourns on Monday.
    The government has gagged debate on its repeal bills to ensure its legislation gets to the Senate in time for a vote this week…
    Labor criticised the government for gagging debate without circulating the amendments…
    “This is a case of the pup wagging the tail, wagging the dog,” Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese said.
    Opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler said it was no wonder households and business were up in arms about the PUP amendments.
    “This government could not organise a pig to be dirty,” he said.
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/carbon-tax-to-be-fasttracked-through-reps-20140714-3bwd6.html

    00

  • #
    john robertson

    So what was missing from the first repeal act?
    The Pardon & Protect Palmer from his Chinese Creditors Clause?
    Maybe Tony Abbott can thank Mr Palmer by making him special Senator for Chinese Trade.

    10

  • #
    pat

    the classy Lenore gives Shorten a chance to out-nasty Clive. nice insult to the 53% of Australians who want the carbon dioxide tax to go, Bill. ugly stuff:

    14 July: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Carbon tax repeal almost certain as PUP seals amendments deal
    During the weekend talks, synthetic gases used in refrigerants were excluded from strict rules and penalties for the passing on of savings derived from the scrapping of the carbon price…
    But this was again changed in the final amendments negotiated on Monday, which were still being drafted as the government forced debate to begin in the lower house. The bills now cover “bulk importers” of these gases but not smaller operators, such as those selling fridges or air conditioners…
    The final version of the bills also clarified that requirements placed on electricity and gas providers to pass on savings do not apply to shopping mall and caravan park owners who sell electricity to their tenants…
    The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Australia’s response to global warming must “sooner rather than later include an emissions trading system”, saying an ETS guaranteed the lowest price greenhouse gas abatement for families and for businesses…
    He accused the prime minister of “sleepwalking his way into a major climate policy disaster, a disaster for the Australian economy and for our environment, a disaster that guarantees that forever more Tony Abbott will be remembered as an environmental vandal”.
    Shorten described the opposition’s alternative “direct action” plan as “an amateur, ill-conceived, centralist Soviet-style voucher system that will give the nation’s biggest polluters great wads of taxpayers money to keep polluting”.
    “Direct Action is a policy designed solely for the PM’s personal core constituency, the Flat Earth Society. It is a policy concocted purely to appease … the cranky radio shock jocks and extreme columnists,” he said.
    Shorten said Abbott was leading “the most ignorant government”, driven by “book-burning instincts and ideology”…
    Supermarkets such as Woolworths are saying that because very few prices actually went up when the tax was introduced, few would now be coming down. Most state electricity regulators have announced that household bills will rise by less if the carbon tax repeal goes through.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/14/carbon-tax-repeal-almost-certain

    00

  • #
    Matty

    BwaHaha. Proving that you can find an Economist to say just about anything.

    At the same time a group of 59 economists, led by the former Liberal leader John Hewson, has appealed to the Senate not to repeal carbon pricing.


    We are writing this open letter as a group of concerned economists with a broad range of personal political views, but united in the judgment that a well-designed mechanism that puts a price and limit on carbon pollution is the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming,” the economists wrote to all MPs and senators.

    If the Greens and their accolytes go for Palmer’s zero rated ETS over Tony’s Direct Action Plan, it proves they are only in it for the money and don’t they realise they are being sold a PUP ?

    00

    • #
      Greg

      …. is the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming,

      So what qualifies these “concerned” economists to assert “carbon” causes global warming.

      What interests economists in all this is a new “market” selling hot air. This makes a whole new multi-billion dollor sector of business with commissions to be creamed off every time something is bought and sold.

      They probably don’t believe all the toss about “carbon” anymore than most here, but they are “concerned” at loosing the chance to make money out of trading the air we breath.

      21

    • #
      bobl

      Actually Greg, I find it particularly disturbing that economists think they can produce a free market from a valueless commodity. (Read my comment to you up above). The idea you can trade carbon dioxide debt, when offsets can be created at a profit astounds me. It’s an economic nonsense, and the fact that 59 economists think it’s a good idea shows me just how ridiculously poor our education system must be for economists.

      The way to stimulate creation of resources when the creation of that resource is cash flow positive but has an entry barrier is to provide an incentive, not a penalty. So a tax rebate for the right type of agriculture would be a much better and effectively zero cost approach over an ETS which is the worst possible approach, given the economics of carbon dioxide abatement.

      20

  • #
    Greg

    Bill Shorten :

    Direct Action is a policy designed solely for the PM’s personal core constituency, the Flat Earth Society.

    OH, he must be referring to those ignorant fools who have noticed that the Earths temperatures has been FLAT for the last 16 years despite the ever increasing amounts of “carbon” in the atmosphere.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

    Of course someone so well read in science a Uncle Bill that he thinks “carbon” causes global warming, will not be worried by such details as the predicted warming he is so furvently trying to stop is not even happening.

    Don’t want to let that get in the way of good rant of name calling and insults, now do we. That would take all the fun about of being HYPOCRITICAL, wouldn’t it Bill.

    Now do excuse me, I have a pile of books to burn today and I don’t want get behind with releasing all that “carbon”.

    31

    • #
      bobl

      The Flat Earth thing always amuses me

      Isn’t it climate scientists that use a model with a non rotating flat world illuminated by 346W per square meter? I would call climate science a flat earth society for sure.

      20

  • #
    pat

    i ain’t watching this! how utterly ridiculous:

    VIDEO 4’26: 14 July: The Age: Shorten’s carbon tax lament
    ‘Let there be no tears for humanity’: in an impassioned speech the Opposition Leader defends Labor’s environmental policy
    http://media.theage.com.au/news/federal-politics/let-there-be-no-tears-for-humanity-shortens-carbon-tax-lament-5594342.html

    in google results, the following had the same headline: ‘Let there be no tears for humanity’: Shorten’s carbon tax lament, but SMH must have thought better of it, tho the video is probably on the page (i didn’t notice):

    14 July: SMH: Lisa Cox: Carbon tax to be abolished on third attempt as deal struck with Clive Palmer
    Speaking in the House of Representatives as he presented the bills for a third time, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Australian people were “waiting on their members and senators to honour their commitment” to repeal the carbon tax.
    He said Australians had already voted on the carbon tax repeal bill.
    “The Australian people voted in the most express, clear and absolute way to ensure that they did not have and would not have a carbon tax and they would have a government which would take real measures to reduce emissions without a carbon tax,” Mr Hunt said…
    Mr Shorten said Mr Abbott was “no leader” and Labor would not let Australia become the first country in the world to abolish a price on carbon without a struggle.
    “He is incapable of identifying the risks and costs of inaction,” Mr Shorten said.
    “He is sleepwalking his way into a major climate policy disaster, a disaster for the Australian economy and for our environment, a disaster that guarantees that forever Tony Abbott will be remembered as an environmental vandal.”
    Labor’s environment spokesperson Mark Butler said the government “could not organise a pig to be dirty” and called Mr Abbott “incapable” of sensible negotiations with the new crossbench senators.
    Labor said it would oppose a gag motion moved by the government because the Parliament was being asked to vote when it was still waiting to see the new Palmer amendments.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-to-be-abolished-on-third-attempt-as-deal-struck-with-clive-palmer-20140714-3bwnz.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***ain’t that the truth, Clive:

    14 July: AAP: Paul Osborne: Carbon tax repeal deal struck
    Mr Palmer later told reporters his party’s support was “not a foregone conclusion” until he saw the final wording of the government’s amendment, which at 4.30pm had yet to be tabled in the lower house.
    However, he issued a media release saying the government had adopted all of the PUP amendments and his party would support the repeal.
    Mr Palmer said the final amendment was the same as that presented on Thursday but with “a little bit of changing and cross-referencing”.
    “It’s not our amendment – it’s being brought by the government,” he said.
    The PUP leader, who abstained when the bills previously came to the lower house because some of his companies would financially benefit from the repeal, said he would vote this time because he had renounced a number of directorships.
    ***”I’m just a politician,” he said.
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24453658/carbon-tax-repeal-deal-struck/

    00

  • #
    BruceC

    Greg. Do you have any children 14 years old or under? To paraphrase Dr David Viner;

    Global Warming is now just a thing of the past. Children just aren’t going to know what Global Warming is
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    There has been ZERO glowbull warming this century!
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend

    10

    • #
      BruceC

      Just in case Greg has a problem with this century…..that is 14 years, 6months and 14 days.

      00

  • #
    BruceC

    Oops. Should be in reply to Greg comment #26

    00

  • #
    DT

    Climate changes.

    10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Unfortunately, what the public wants and what they get depends upon the egos of the men elected. And their egos are always for sale.

    00

  • #
    Cameron

    I for one will be cheering when this ridiculous tax is repealed. Many of my friends and co workers lost their jobs because of the down spiral this sent the resource sector into.

    The irony is I have been a labor and greens voter every election for the last 25 years. That was until 3 months when I realised the complete snow job that had been fabricated by the IPCC et al. I had long been suspicious but then I heard Lord Monkton and Bob Carter speak.

    Rest assured, I have learnt the error of my ways and as such I will never in my life vote for Labor and Greens again!

    20

    • #
      bobl

      Cameron, your experience mirrors my own, and I think Jo’s was similar too. I was taken in by the propaganda, the save the whales, trees and any other damned thing they could think of to stop industrialisation. It took the carbon dioxide follies to show me the problem. That greens don’t give a sh1-tango about PEOPLE. I want to save the environment, but I would save it for PEOPLE. Locking humans in high rise ghettos in mega cities cordoned off from nature as Agenda 21 envisages is not a future I would want to live in.

      Nor is their world government plan – one question for greens, what happens when you don’t like your “one world government”, where do you go then?

      Before the CO2 follies, I was a Labor voter, and I would protest vote toward the greens, what a mistake! Now I vote for candidates that represent humanity, real compassion, truth, honesty and integrity (not that there’s much of that anywhere in politics) – however various royal commissions and the CO2 debate show the complete defecit of any integrity in progressive (oops I mean regressive) political parties in the 21st century. They are not likely to see my vote again until they fix that.

      Those folks in the USA also have this disease to contend with, Barrack (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, I did not order the drone attack on THAT US citizen, I knew nothing as THAT US consulate was bombed, I did not arm those terrorists, I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman ( oops wrong democrat president)) Obama, seems to be Julia Gillard’s long lost twin brother.

      10

      • #
        bobl

        Oh, forgot the spook disclaimer.
        For the spooks, I am all for real America, an America that doesn’t lead us down the path to ruination. That doesn’t waste billions (like us) on useless green schemes. In fact the world needs America desperately to keep some of the evil in the world in check. We can’t afford an impotent America that believes the green dream, that considers frogs and turtles before people, we can’t afford an America content to let their grannies die in fuel poverty, that herds their population into UN approved guilded cages. Your current president is failing, and the world is getting to a precarious place and it’s largely Tax’n'spend, green waste, and liberal idealogical pseudo-economics that’s making it happen. I want the good people of the USA to fix it, for the good of the whole world.

        10

    • #
      Mattb

      yes of course your friends lost jobs because of the ETS what crap.

      01

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    If this tax is repealed, what will be put in its place to make up for the revenue lost?

    00

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      The revenue is not “lost”. It is being used by those who earned it. A more salient question is – are the tax collections needed?

      00