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

Tic-tic-tic: Carbon tax repeal goes to Australian Senate (track that progress)

UPDATE Thursday: DONE Success at 11:15am this morning in Canberra. The Carbon Tax is gone.

UPDATE: Weds -- This could take days. The repeal was before the Senate this morning. Labor and the Greens are “dragging the debate out” with speeches. “Filibustering” according to Finance Minister Mathias Corman (The Australian). More debate is due tonight. But the Senate has agreed to extend sitting hours after Friday and keep coming back until this is resolved. They were due to start a 5 week break on Friday. (See Sky News too). This doesn’t look like being resolved today. (SMH)

Sydney Morning Herald:   It [The government] was concerned that while all eight cross-bench senators say they are committed to consigning the carbon tax to history in a final vote, as many as three might baulk at the use of a guillotine to bring an end debate and force that vote.

In a further sign the government had lost exclusive control of the legislative timetable, the Climate Change Authority bill was removed from the list of those to be considered, supposedly at the insistence of the PUP.

Sources said the CCA bill, the purported vehicle for Mr Palmer’s proposed ”dormant” emissions trading scheme, will not be presented this week. Fairfax understands there is also last-minute discussion over Mr Palmer’s belated inclusion of India in the basket of countries to which the CCA would be required to look when recommending that Australia should activate its dormant ETS.

This post will stay sticky at the top until this is resolved. New posts will appear underneath – Jo

The carbon tax repeal legislation went through the House of Reps yesterday. It still needs to go through the Senate. It looks likely to be repealed by the end of the week. (Don’t plan the celebrations yet). Clive Palmer has said the PUP senators will accept these amendments. The Senate is sitting til Thursday, though the repeal bill is not listed on the current schedule.

This morning SkyNews was reporting that it may go through the Senate as early as today, but that news story has been updated. The cross-benchers could not agree on the timetable, so perhaps tomorrow, perhaps Thursday? The Parliamentary schedule looks very full. (It also includes the “Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] [homepage]‘ and Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014 [homepage] )

– SkyNews (latest) Repeal not set in stone

The Abbott government has yet to secure the Senate votes it needs to get its carbon tax repeal legislation through parliament.

The government had flagged it would fast-track a package of repeal bills through the upper house on Tuesday.

But in a surprise move, it ditched them from the chamber’s program because it can’t get the cross bench to agree on a timetable to debate the bills.

The government is also in negotiations with crossbench senators about other legislation it wants to clear before a five-week break from sittings.

- See more at: SkyNews

This is the thread to discuss Palmer, and the progress of the carbon tax repeal bill.

I will update this thread as news comes in.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (48 votes cast)
Tic-tic-tic: Carbon tax repeal goes to Australian Senate (track that progress), 8.8 out of 10 based on 48 ratings

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

163 comments to Tic-tic-tic: Carbon tax repeal goes to Australian Senate (track that progress)

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Arrgghh! this is like the worst drawn out divorce in history!

    You just want it over so you can celebrate and get that exciting pang of freedom back, kick this biatch to the curb already!

    310

    • #
      Paul in Sweden

      A drawn out divorce is bad but having to continue paying Green Alimony afterwards is much worse!

      350

      • #
        DT

        Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, now says that Union Labor will introduce an emissions trading scheme if they are returned to government (see Andrew Bolt Daily Telegraph). No doubt they would also abandon Operation Sovereign Borders like they abandoned Pacific Solution, bring back mining tax and reinstate the several commission and tribunals now being closed down. In other words Union Labor plans to repeat their economy wrecking vandalism as soon as they are handed government again.

        60

        • #
          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″

          For the left the objective seems to be expensive energy in small quantities?

          Why?

          Because developed societies don’t vote for the core leftist ideology and solutions? Simply because we are to rich and that the middle class majority has developed away from needing the leftist solutions and policy? The middle class needs to be poor again in order to have neosocialism?

          20

    • #
    • #
      Yonniestone

      WOO HOO! good riddance you succubus of freedom, I hope the first salvo in one of many to drive back the green menace.

      Well done Australia.

      20

  • #

    Terrible timing, Jo.

    Just a few minutes ago, I posted in Weekend Unthreaded on what was vaguely relevant in that place.

    Now it’s directly relevant: My blog item “Senators for States” (or how did we get into this mess and how could we avoid it in future?”

    150

    • #

      Apologies for the pytographical errirs. This isn’t the first time that I’ve pressed “Post Comment” when I meant to press “Preview”.

      81

      • #
        Bulldust

        I think my preferred option is voting for parties above the line. Most of the time I have no idea about the individual candidates. Perhaps numbering the candidates below the line could be an additional option… e.g. 5 members for that perty, and you want that party … a one above the line, and 1 through 5 below the line.

        I assume there are a lot of different ways to skin this cat, but the way the preference system worked the last few elections is a complete and utter farce. No way the electorate thought some of those candidates were getting up, let alone preferred. It’s a complete bastardization of a good idea, much like the model of Federation we were allowed to vote on a decade or so ago. I have no problem with the federal concept, but the option proferred to the people was a complete joke.

        20

        • #

          My proposal allows a “vote” for “none of the above” by not placing a number against any candidate. For those who vote for a party, they can scan through the randomised list of candidates and read the party affiliation.

          Similarly, if you can only recognize e.g. 2 candidates as being likely to be competent Senators and of similar mind to your own; then you need only vote for those 2 and not taint the pool with “preferences” towards those about who you are indifferent/ignorant/depressed/scared.

          We have ample evidence that preferential voting doesn’t work adequately for the Senate ballot. A re-analysis of the votes below the line from recent elections is necessary to evaluate the plausibility of a different system of counting votes and filling Senate vacancies. We could leave that entirely to the Electoral Office; but I suspect that their minds are too highly trained. ;-)

          30

          • #
            Bulldust

            I think you are assuming people are a lot more informed than they are in reality. The vast majority of the Senate candidates on any given form are completely unknown to me, while half the ones in the established parties are relatively unklnown to me as well. If I were to limit my voting to just the ones with which I have a degree of like-mindededness it would be a very small number of votes indeed.

            How about negative votes … should we be allowed to place a nay vote against candidates and/or parties? I think that would be a laugh. Vote the Greens into oblivion! Of course, you would have to be limited to either a positive vote or a negative one… would spice up elections somewhat LOL

            10

            • #

              Fixed it for you.

              I had a “reasonable” and plausible solution in my head this morning when I awoke. Obviously REM sleep helps to organize things in my head as the previous evening’s blog article left me quite disenchanted at ever being able to figure out what the voters want.

              This morning, the answer was self-evident: Establish a simple, common code (language) for communicating intent and preference priorities.

              00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nicely though out, Bernd. But what are the chances of the Australian political claque adopting your idea?

      Once you have arcane knowledge, that others do not possess, you have power, and power is everything in politics.

      80

      • #

        What are the chances? Not fantastic. It’s been less than 24 hours since publication and it’s not being discussed in the Chamber. ;-)

        Especially as it repositions the Senate in the federalist camp; something that moderates the (inevitable) centralist nature of a Commonwealth Government. But in doing so, it’d be closer to the original intent of the Senate.

        The States ought to be behind such a change in the workings of the Senate. When effective, it would also reduce the amount of work required by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) as the Senate would reflect the objectives of the individual States. After all COAG does little more than what I understand was the purpose of the Senate in the first place; to “balance” the priorities of the States across the Commonwealth.

        It’s quite conceivable for the Senators of a State to meet formally with their respective State parliaments, to regularly discuss the State/Commonwealth relationship.

        Primary objections would be from (insecure) party numpties and those who cannot “function” without the formally-adversarial Westminster system; which curreently in Government vs Opposition, doesn’t reflect what I read as the notional purpose of the Senate.

        While the State “branches” of the ALP and Greens are more likely to conform to the wisdom of the one true party and government for all :-) , other established political parties appear more pragmatic about local priorities and responding to their own electorate.

        10

  • #
    King Geo

    The CT will go soon – is only a matter of time – but PUP is winning political points in the meantime as it matures and is happy to conduct in “dogfights” for political expediency on a number of issues. As I said previously PUP has been an attraction to senior voters disenchanted with the two major parties. Some of my retired friends “like PUP” because they seem to be “going in to bat” for them. The Greens are not an option for this type of voter especially wrt to their policies on border protection – the Greens are happy to see an avalanche of illegal immigrants many of whom it seems are in reality “economic refugees” engaging in queue jumping. My prediction is that PUP will gradually increase in popularity through time by catching the “senior vote”. As mentioned in an earlier Jo article “older voters” are more interested in the rescinding of the CT (Newspoll). The younger generation are more in favour of the CT – this clearly being a function of “Warmist Brainwashing” by Secondary/Tertiary education and the MSM. Many of the older generation have not been fooled by this populist “Warmist Deception” which is totally at odds with “real global temperature data of the past 15 years”.

    130

  • #
    scaper...

    This is getting ridiculous!

    Just sent a text, will report back when I get an answer.

    101

    • #
      scaper...

      No reply yet which indicates negotiations are happening. Rang a backbencher mate…no answer either which indicates the situation is at critical mass.

      I picked the wrong week to give up snorting powdered whale bone.

      201

    • #
      scaper...

      Just got a call from my mate on the backbench. Had to be cut short because the division bell is ringing.

      Here is how it stands…it is considered that the amendments are sensible because it actually puts the onus on the power suppliers to actually abide to reduce prices of electricity.

      The government is at ease with Palmer’s tactics as long as Palmer does not venture into left field so no DD any time soon.

      I’ll update on the situation as information comes to hand. The bottom line is…no need to panic as the government will get it done.

      I picked the wrong month to withdraw from injecting baby seal blood, regardless of the soothing phone call.
      —-
      Thanks for the updates… — Jo

      272

      • #

        The actual generating entities for the electrical power change their costs, by law, the instant the clock ticks over to midnight on the day the legislation takes effect.

        Consider this. Say just the one power plant, Bayswater, is operating at full capacity. In the hour prior to the WEF date of the legislation they will deliver 2,640MWH of power to the grid. With the current CO2 Tax rated at around 17% of power costs, that comes in at an added $5.10 per MWH, so for one hour the added cost for the CO2 emissions is a tick under $13,500 per hour. So in just the one hour after that WEF date, MacGen saves $13,500. Just one day that comes in at $323,000 or a Million dollars every 3 days ….. just for the CO2 Tax element of the power costs.

        This is just for the one plant. Now, multiply that by the number of power plants in operation in Australia.

        See now why the regulator enforces any changes so rigorously.

        The same price change applies for the power retailers.

        All this is enforced, and enforced with an iron fist, by the AEMO, the Australian regulating authority.

        See now how utterly clueless big Clive is on this matter.

        Then there’s the impost on all natural gas supplies, and the same applies here, with cost changes rigidly enforced as well.

        Then there’s the added costs on the other 23 GHG’s also included in the legislation, also with their price changes regulated.

        Tony.

        231

        • #
          the Griss

          I posted this below, but what the heck..

          You will love this one, Tony :-)

          50

        • #
          John

          You’re not correct here with your analysis Tony. If Bayswater runs at full capacity at 2,640 MW, yes it will generate 2,640 MWh. The power sent to the grid will be less due to station auxiliaries which would be in the order of about 5%. But never mind because the carbon tax is based on the carbon dioxide emitted from the coal burned by the power station. The greenhouse gas intensity of Bayswater would be about 870 kg CO2 per MWh (at say 100% output factor). A more reasonable output factor would be typically say 80% (or most likely less due to the welching impact of renewable generation on the grid) and the greenhouse gas intensity would be 875 kg CO2 per MWh at this output.

          The carbon tax increased to $25.40 per tonne from July 1. So the cost of the carbon tax to Bayswater operating at 100% output would be 2,640 x .87 x $25.40 = $58,338 per hour. Sent out generation at this output would be 2,500 MWh so the increase in price is about $23.26/MWh. The precise increase in power costs will vary depending on station output and actual sent out power, but would be quite close to this figure.

          40

        • #
          cohenite

          Hi Tony; where do you get the 17% from?

          20

          • #

            ATTENTION – ERROR.

            Thanks for this cohenite. I have indeed made an error. It’s taken me time to chase the correct figures down, and that’s why I’m late responding here.

            That 17% was at the retail end of electricity sales, the increase in electricity cost for consumers of that 17%.

            The actual cost for the power generating entities is indeed much ….. much higher, both in dollar terms and percentage terms.

            The table shown at this link bears that out, and this is based around the initial cost of only $26 per tonne. This is the Government’s own table and what I have done here is place a small black square alongside the electrical power generating entities in the top 20 Companies and the amounts they have to pay, and as you can count here, there are 14 of those in the top 20.

            Macquarie Generation are the top company mentioned here, and their cost comes in at $613.2 Million per year, increasing each year, costs passed directly down to all consumers.

            Bayswater’s total is sixteen twenty sixths of that overall cost (16TWH from Bayswater and 10TWH from Liddell, both owned by Macgen) so that is $377.4 Million, and for 16TWH that comes in at $23.58/MWH.

            That is also borne out by the figures shown at the table shown at this link as well, and the figures there are for the average increase from all power generating entities.

            So, in the example I mentioned above That’s a cost just for the CO2 emission per hour of $62,300 per hour, or around $1.5 Million per day, just for Bayswater alone, and just for the added cost for the CO2 emissions.

            My apologies for this error, and cohenite, thanks for bringing it to may attention.

            Sort of way way worse than I made it out to be.

            Tony.

            140

            • #
              Mattb

              tony can you express the $1.5 million per day as a percentage of the total cost of power paid by customers? I mean it’s going to be about $15million per day. So we’re talking 10% yeah? I mean it’s all good and well you quoting scary big numbers… but that’s just because the numbers in power generation are big.

              116

              • #

                Gee MattB,

                there you go again, just guessing wildly, minimising it by saying it’s only 10% when all you had to do was read what I wrote above.

                Funny, if you were to read carefully before running off and sniping at me, you’d see I mentioned that in the Comment where I said, umm, and let me quote for you exactly what I wrote above:

                That 17% was at the retail end of electricity sales, the increase in electricity cost for consumers of that 17%.

                That’s around 3.8 cents per KWH on top of the earlier cost, taking it up from a tad over 22 cents per KWH up to 26 cents per KWH on a Queensland electricity bill, (actual cost quoted from my own electricity accounts pre and post CO2 Tax) which, surprisingly is indeed 17%.

                That’s for residential consumers. There are different contractual structures for Industry and Commerce, and again that 17% was reflected in all new contracts for those two sectors as well.

                Take some time to read what is written first before running off to flame me, eh. You’re doing a lot of that lately. Surely it’s not that difficult to comprehend.

                Tony.

                230

              • #
                Mattb

                Did you really have to post 5 lengthy paragraphs instead of just quoting from your power bill then?

                17% is pretty damn high though… over here it’s about 9-10%, and apparently with repeal things will not go down so much as network costs are higher now.

                So basically what i’m saying is that despite your back of the envelope calcs and big numbers and hand waving, I am actually seriously dubious that your electricity bill is 17% carbon tax. If it is NSW must use some pretty crap fuel or have a superbly efficient network with low overhead costs.

                011

              • #

                Hey Mattb,

                my my, how observant you are.

                You’ve placed Rockhampton in NSW now.

                You need to read things a little more carefully. You suddenly seem to have lost the ability to understand what is being said.

                Must be the green blinkers you wear.

                And hey, even I know Bayswater is in NSW. I always use Bayswater as the prime example for continuity purposes.

                You know, with each post, it seems you’re coming in and alluding to the fact I’m lying. Surely you’re not saying that are you Mattb?

                At all times, I try to be as accurate as I possibly can, and when I do make mistakes, I actually own up to them, as shown above, and still you very vaguely allude to the fact that you think I’m lying.

                Not a good look Mattb.

                Your green religious belief is colouring your judgement.

                Tony.

                90

              • #
                Mattb

                Ahh so you are using your power bill in QLD but NSW power stations? It seems you don’t think the borders matter much either… so excuse me for thinking you were using consistent numbers.

                Tony you’re a showman. Showmen don’t lie, they just present facts in such a manner that the audience can’t help but draw the wrong conclusion.

                011

              • #
                Mattb

                “That’s around 3.8 cents per KWH on top of the earlier cost, taking it up from a tad over 22 cents per KWH up to 26 cents per KWH on a Queensland electricity bill, (actual cost quoted from my own electricity accounts pre and post CO2 Tax) which, surprisingly is indeed 17%.”

                So is this a pre and post CO2 Tax bill, or the actual cost increase associated with the CO2 tax? Because your pre and post bills could have other reasons for some of that hike.

                17% is very high.

                08

              • #
                Mattb

                http://www.dews.qld.gov.au/energy-water-home/electricity/prices/carbon-tax-renewable-energy-target?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print-guide

                Carbon Tax: 7%
                Breakdown of typical Tariff 11 bill costs in 2014-15. Information provided by the Queensland Competition Authority. Totals do not add due to rounding.

                09

              • #
                Mattb

                Although the statement on bills:
                “‘Qld Competition Authority estimates the Federal carbon price and renewable energy target add about $259 a year to a typical 6.3MWh household bill-www.qca.org.au.’”

                is a 13% increase if it is 30.817 kwh cost (Tariff 11)

                If it was 17% I can’t imagine Newman toning things down for the power bill.

                07

              • #
                Angry

                Had an electricity bill lately “Mattb”????????????

                communist imbecile traitor !

                11

            • #
              cohenite

              Tony, outstanding as usual.

              90

              • #
              • #
                the Griss

                wrong ?

                Prove it, leaf-brain.!

                60

              • #
                cohenite

                I had been looking for the Scope 1 and 2 lists for some time. Tony has obviously cached these because as far as I know the Gillard government had disappeared them.

                MacGen supplies about 40% of NSW’s electricity through Bayswater and Liddell. The government’s own figures show a CO2 tax liability of over $613 million PA for MacGen.

                I’m wondering whether some deal was done with producers like MacGen to keep the prices down because if MacGen was paying $613 million PA it would have been bankrupt in one year since it makes about $200 million profit PA.

                What a stinking mess the CO2 tax was/is.

                40

              • #
                Angry

                “the Griss”,
                Indeed !
                A leaf would be more intelligent……

                00

        • #
          incoherent rambler

          the current CO2 Tax … comes in at an added $5.10 per MWH,

          Hmmm. Correct me if I am wrong, but the tax is close to the retail cost of electricity in some of our competitor countries.

          10

          • #
            Mattb

            $5.10 per MWH is 0.51c per kWh. Do our competitor countries retail electricity at 0.5c per kWh?

            15

            • #

              Mattb: “$5.10 per MWH is 0.51c per kWh.”
              Hmm, would you like to reconsider that, Matt?

              30

            • #
              Bulldust

              Well some of the Middle Eastern countries have power costs on that order of magnitude, but not quite that low:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

              Sort list by US cents per kWh. interesting to see Denmark, the pride of the Greenies for all its windmills, is sitting right near the top in cost. Solar germany is not far behind. The only other nations with such horrendous costs are tiny island nations which don’t enjoy the economies of large fossil-fuel fired power stations.

              Australia is creeping towards the high end of the range as well. All that RET, gold plating, CO2 tax etc. It is starting to hurt.

              10

    • #
      scaper...

      Just got a reply from Greg.

      He has done all he can in negotiations. He says it’s now is in the hands of the Senate. He has done all he can.

      50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Powdered whale bone, baby seal blood? sounds like the drugs Heston would do.

        Great updates scaper but I’m not getting my hopes up yet god dammit. :(

        80

  • #

    I’ve just added the line about other topics being discussed in the Senate this week:

    The Parliamentary schedule looks very full. (It also includes the “Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] [homepage]‘ and Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014 [homepage] )

    see: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/This_week_at_a_glance

    I would like to see these repeals go through, but it’s my understanding Clive wants to keep these “advertising” agencies?

    I’ll make this short post on the legislation above a sticky post at the top until this Carbon Tax legislation gets voted on in the Senate.

    PS: I”ve just added a post about the Labor Party gift to Coalition — gullible green-left still want a tax to change the weather.

    222

  • #
    TdeF

    It is 50:50 that Palmer will back out at the last minute with some petulant complaint about the colour of the flowers in the hall. That is his style, a common arrogant business tactic to get his own way, to demonstrate his strategic power and just to get attention, which he craves. It will work. The Greens and Labor would be cheering, without realising they look like sock puppets too, backing a carbon tax despite two absolute election promises not to have one. Best case, if he forces a double dissolution, he gets out of the house of Reps, where he cannot sleep anyway and has no power and concentrates on the Senate. Svengali like, he can run Australia from the Senate without being accountable to the Australia people, much like the Unions. He has already tried to pass amendments which were not even legal, to write legislation in the senate and has forced the Prime Minister to make it law by forcing it on the House of Representatives by guillotine. He would be very happy.

    The common brutal business technique is to back away at the last moment and demand more and then reluctantly to be appeased, only to do it all again and build hopes again. People do this with real estate, cars, everything, add conditions at the last moment when all was settled and desperate, having already committed the money elsewhere and now desperate. The vendor is hooked.

    Besides, it just worked beautifully. You can do it as many times as you like and make the Prime Minister do exactly what you want. The Chinese might just stop asking for their money back too.

    150

    • #
      DT

      How dare he verbally abuse the Clerk, she has legal training, PUP amendments were unconstitutional and she rightly pointed it out. Palmer MP has no right to be entering into Senate business. And as for his abuse of a female senior Senate employee, what a Grub.

      190

  • #
    gesta non verba

    The removing of the”carbon dioxide tax”isn’t vital it can be removed at leisure but the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) 2013 and Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bills need to go asap,these two entities cost Australia as a whole serious amounts of money which is mostly borrowed.
    The “carbon dioxide tax” can be recouped,and the govt won’t be overly concerned about getting increased taxation monies turn up in the kitty.

    101

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Have you forgotten where those taxes come from?
      And you’re not concerned about paying more tax out of your wage for an obsolete purpose.

      30

  • #
    Cameron

    Are we still a signature on Kyoto, or has this been removed by Tony yet? If not we need to do this like the Canadians have done so that we can clearly show that we are not part of this climate hysteria that Labor, the Greens and the ABC radically promote. As such I see a clear correlation between the axing of so many at the ABC.

    Next stop the Csiro and the BoM. Let’s get some independent scientists in top jobs! For the meantime, let’s just get everything Jo mentioned done first.

    160

    • #
      bobl

      Kyoto has expired, there was an extension agreed by Australia and a few rag-tag nations but it isn’t enforceable in any sense – IE it’s not a treaty.

      193

      • #
        bobl

        Gee, a red thumb… for that, just pointing out a fact? Must be from a person that doesn’t like facts, who imagines that Kyoto is still in force

        150

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I do wonder if Joe has access to who presses the thumbs.
          Now that would be a Lewandowski study worth doing.

          20

        • #
          bobl

          Gee, doing well today 3 red thumbs, do I hear 4, the Mattb in the back, any advance on 3 or are you out of the bidding… C’mon I’m sure there are more than 3 of you. Wish the stockmarket would go up like my red thumbs have today!

          30

  • #
    pat

    ABC’s version:

    15 July: ABC: Emma Griffiths: Carbon tax repeal: Senate debate postponed by Government as MP Andrew Laming casts doubt on savings touted by Tony Abbott
    The bills were passed by the House of Representatives late yesterday and were listed to be considered first by the Upper House when it resumed at 12:30 AEST today.
    However, Leader of Government business in the Senate Mitch Fifield moved to vary the order of business to bring on debate about the mining tax instead.
    He indicated talks about the repeal of the carbon tax were continuing with minor parties.
    “There will be further discussions through the course of the afternoon,” he told Parliament…
    A statement from the Prime Minister’s office says the carbon tax debate has been held up by a need to negotiate with crossbench, Labor and the Greens over other legislation to be considered by the Senate.
    “As soon as this has been broadly agreed, the motion will be put that will enable the carbon tax bills to be brought on for debate,” the statement said.
    The Government has also sought to extend sitting hours for the Senate to ensure the agreed legislation is passed before the five week winter recess.
    ***Palmer United Party (PUP) leader Clive Palmer says he does not know why the Government is delaying the vote.
    “I can’t tell you because I’m not the Government, of course, but I can tell you I expect it to happen late tonight or early tomorrow morning,” he said…
    But the Liberal member for the outer Brisbane seat of Bowman, Andrew Laming, says households may not gain the full $550.
    “It will be $550 lower than it otherwise would be, but if other elements have made prices go up by $100 then you won’t see a $550 fall on any bill,” the backbencher said.
    “But you’ll be $550 better off than you otherwise would have been, and that’s a very important caveat.”
    Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt disputes the claim entirely…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-15/coalition-puts-off-senate-debate-on-carbon-tax-repeal/5597406

    20

  • #
    pat

    6.51pm Channel 7: AAP: Carbon tax back before the Senate
    The government has introduced its carbon tax repeal into the Senate for what it hopes is the last time.
    Debate is now underway on the package of bills, which passed the House of Representatives on Monday…
    The government is still confident the tax will be axed by the end of the week – but the Senate has agreed to sit until the package and four other bills have been dealt with.
    That could take days or even weeks…
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24467447/carbon-tax-back-before-the-senate/

    50

  • #
    pat

    15 July: (South) Korea Times: Kim Yoo-chul: Industries ask for delay on carbon tax
    Manufacturers asked the government Tuesday to delay the introduction of its emission-trading plan until 2020, or cancel it altogether. Its introduction is scheduled for next year.
    “If the carbon tax is implemented, it will hurt industrial competitiveness,” Park Chan-ho, a senior executive at the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), told reporters at a news conference in Yeoui-do.
    “Across the world, governments are softening regulations. We urge the government to take note and jointly develop eco-friendly technologies with the industries,” he said…
    The FKI, which represents interests of major conglomerates, has teamed up with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and 21 other industrial lobbies to ask the government to abolish its plan…
    Although Korea isn’t a major per capita greenhouse-gas emitter compared to China, the United States and Japan, the carbon tax has so far been proven to be an unpopular levy driving up energy costs for both businesses and consumers, according to the FKI…
    An official at Hyundai-Kia welcomed the joint statement by the FKI saying; “The carbon tax is a big burden on manufacturers and will be a burden to consumers, eventually. I don’t understand why the government is preparing to introduce the system.”
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/07/133_161055.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    i posted this at Bolt an hour or so ago, but too late for those who moderate the comments, it would seem:

    i wish the Govt would explain to the public that current
    tax/prices of carbon are not static. there are those who talk of $250 a tonne being the right price to make Renewables affordable. here is Robert S. Pindyck the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. Professor of Economics and Finance in the
    Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, mentioning a price for the “Social Cost of Carbon” as $200!

    .pdf: MIT: Pricing carbon when we don’t know the right price
    That would suggest the SCC is large, perhaps $100 or $200 per ton of CO2, which would imply a substantial tax on carbon, e.g., as much as $2 per gallon of gas…
    http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/PricingCarbonRegulation2013.pdf

    if the public understood where all this taxing/pricing of carbon dioxide emissions was meant to go, it would be game over immediately. unfortunately, the MSM is the medium which should have been informing them/warning them over many years, particularly post-Climategate but, as we know, the media has failed the public in this regard.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pat:
      We had a carbon tax at $25 and a RET certificate at $30-40 (meaning another $7 at 20%) and there was no rush to get into renewables. Given that coal costs around $30 per MWh and wind around $120-140, the obvious answer is a carbon tax of $100. Of course the variable and irregular nature of renewables adds other costs to the system as well, but telling people that a “proper” carbon tax would lift their bills by another 50% would not go down smoothly.

      40

  • #
    DT

    The Carbon Tax Repeal Bill has been approved in the Parliament Lower House a few times, but the Senate has rejected it each time. Now PUP’s leader MP not Senator Palmer is accused of abusing the Clerk of the Senate because she dared to point out that PUP amendments are unconstitutional. Palmer MP has no right to be involved in Senate business. Other Senators have condemned Palmer for his behaviour. What a buffoon he is, how could this man be so ignorant?

    70

  • #
    DT

    I ask intelligent people to research everything Union Labor Green say, for example that the Coalition said they would never deal with minority members, no, they said that but added to form government, adding unlike Labor did.

    They claim the government promised no new taxes, not true, during the election campaign the Coalition said that was their goal but added that there was a serious Labor Budget problem that had to be dealt with first.

    Labor says the Coalition added to the 2013/14 budget deficit, no, Labor lied and creatively accounted that budget they handed to the Coalition and they had to fund unfunded Labor Budget commitments such as Gonski grants to the state governments. That funding increased the budget deficit and debt.

    People Union Labor Green are running a massive brainwashing campaign based on lies and deception. fo not accept the lies and deception without checking the facts.

    131

  • #
    DT

    Our system of government is broken, preferential voting has delivered a Senator for a motoring group who is a puppet with a handler with less than 2% primary vote and a disgruntled Tasmanian PUP Senator with less than 6% primary vote who is now under investigation for being a candidate while on a Veterans Affairs disability pension which is illegal.

    Palmer is an MP with a primary vote of less than 25%.

    70

    • #
      Ross

      Don’t worry DT , the NZ system MMP is just as bad at giving power to minorities, who end up with very much more influence than is reflected in their percentage of the voter base. It results in the Government and MPs in general wasting a lot of time on just trivial matters –not good Government at all.

      10

  • #
    DT

    If I traded in business opening a hamburger shop called McDonald Democrat I would be sued, but at the last federal election Liberal Democrats was accepted by the Australian Electoral Commission. Why would libertarians call their party Liberal if not to be deceptively similar to Liberal Party?

    Union Labor and their manipulation of the AEC needs to be investigated.

    40

    • #
      Tim

      Their name is pure marketing. It got them to the head of the ballot paper and so the donkey vote from those voting in a hurry, or just plain clueless. In a marketing sense, this prime position would be priceless.

      30

  • #
    DT

    Check the Labor 2013/14 Budget, unfunded commitments, creative accounting including understated budget deficit. Check the 2012/13 creative accounted Labor Budget. And then research Labor Lies about the 2014/15 Coalition Budget.

    60

  • #
    • #
      PhilJourdan

      On a related note – some outfit in these parts is trying to drive solar. Warning if you do not invest now, you will “pay later”. At my age, the gullibility of the public no longer surprises me.

      120

  • #
    pat

    5 mins ago, ABC updates for Christine:

    15 July: ABC: Carbon tax repeal: Senate begins debating legislation for third time
    …The Senate’s sitting hours have been extended tonight and on Thursday night to ensure government business is dealt with before Parliament’s winter break.
    Senators could also be forced to sit on Friday and over the weekend.
    Greens leader Christine Milne says the Senate should not have to sit extended hours so the Government can force through the repeal of the carbon tax.
    “This is the Abbott Government’s agenda, it is not the will of the people. It is the Abbott Government’s agenda that is being put on here and pushed through this parliament,” she said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-15/legislation-to-scrap-the-carbon-tax-introduced-to-the-senate/5599272

    100

    • #
      the Griss

      “it is not the will of the people.”

      That evil, vindictive woman is serious deluded.

      The Liberal government won a MASSIVE MAJORITY of the elected members of parliament,

      and one of the three main planks was to GET RID OF THE CARBON TAX.

      It is VERY MUCH the will of the people.!!!!!!!

      191

      • #
        Ron Cook

        tG

        Evil indeed. As is that woman from Tassie.

        Ron Cook
        R-COO- K+

        20

      • #
        bobl

        Griss,
        You didn’t listen properly…

        It wasn’t “The will of the people belonging to the greens party”, after all they’re the only ones that count right?

        00

    • #
      the Griss

      Milne says the Senate should not have to sit extended hours

      She can leave any time she wants. !!!

      Off you go, you irksome ***** !

      171

      • #
        Tim

        Christine Milne: “This is the Abbott Government’s agenda, it is not the will of the people. It is the Abbott Government’s agenda that is being put on here and pushed through this parliament,” she said.

        Gee, I must have got it all wrong. I thought the repeal of the CT WAS the will of the people.

        But who am I to blow against the wind.

        190

        • #
          Angry

          The majority of Australian voters voted for this carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) TAX to be abolished !!

          HOW IS THIS NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ??????????????

          11

  • #
    DT

    Hostile Senate deserves to be tested

    60

  • #
    Bruce

    Passage of the legislation would be much easier if the arguments were fact based rather than a matter of religion.

    I don’t believe CAGW has gone away as a political issue, precisely because it is a religion.

    120

  • #
    pat

    15 July: Bloomberg: Joe Carroll: Coal Plant Carbon Pollution Injects Life in Old Oil Wells
    The dream of pollution-free coal plants is getting a boost from growing demand for carbon dioxide used to revive old oilfields.
    In one of the first projects to harness the C02 waste of a coal plant for oil drilling, power generator NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) announced today that it’s beginning construction on a $1 billion retrofit of its East Texas coal plant. NRG will pump carbon dioxide pollution from the plant deep into a nearby oil field that it partially owns. The idea is to loosen trapped crude deposits, making old wells flow like new while burying the harmful greenhouse gas. Cash from the increased oil production will help pay for the project, NRG said in a statement today…
    Construction on the project near Houston is scheduled to begin today. When finished in late 2016, the facility will remove carbon equivalent to the exhaust of 336,000 cars annually and spur a 30-fold increase in crude output from the West Ranch oilfield about 80 miles (129 kilometers) away. NRG’s partner in the project is JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corp., Japan’s largest oil refiner and a unit of JX Holdings Inc.. (5020) The two co-own the oilfield with closely-held Hilcorp Energy Co.
    “This is taking a pollutant and turning it into a marketable commodity that’ll unlock billions of barrels of oil,” said Brad Crabtree, vice president of fossil energy at the Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development, a Minneapolis-based non-profit that studies energy and climate change…
    As horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale rock catapults North American energy production to the top of the world, some oil prospectors including Texas billionaire Rich Kinder and Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY) are focusing on the tried-and-true method of carbon flooding to increase production in older oil fields…
    There are 160 billion barrels of crude sitting under what were once considered depleted wells. Virtually all of that oil could be tapped with CO2, estimates Chirag Rathi, a principal at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan. That would be a $17 trillion haul at current prices…
    “There is so much need for CO2 in west Texas,” Ricketson said. “There are millions and millions of barrels of oil waiting to be unlocked. It’s not as widespread as it could be because of the limited availability of CO2.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/coal-plant-carbon-pollution-injects-life-in-old-oil-wells.html

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:

      The key phrase is tried-and-tested. It has been used for many years, as a gaseous variant of frakking. There are some cases where the gas escaped, but only a very minor percentage.

      Obviously it can’t be used to release natural gas, so I expect the Greens to demand it be used for coal seam gas extraction. They always want your cake and to eat it too.

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Obviously a carbon(sic) tax is needed …

    Enormous crater appears suddenly in part of Russia whose name translates as ‘the end of the world’

    “The cause of the hole’s sudden appearance in Yamal – which translates as ‘the end of the world’ – in the far north of Siberia is not yet known.
    There has been web speculation about the crater indicating ‘the arrival of a UFO craft’.

    But one Russian expert says the cause is more likely to be global warming releasing gases under the surface, which then explode like a champagne cork.”
    . . . .
    Well, that certainly brought out all the doomsday lunatics and AFDB wearing climate conspiracy theorists.

    But there was one missing…
    Expect a visit from Doctor Doomsday aka Dr Connelley (for a doctor he is), explaining how the hole would have been bigger if not for Julia Gillard’s carbon(sic) tax.

    You know it makes sense.

    60

  • #
    pat

    15 July: Business Spectator: Mike Sandiford: How much will Tassie pay for shorting the carbon price?
    (Mike Sandiford is a professor of geology and the director of the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne. This article was originally published on The Conversation)
    While the details of cause and effect can be debated, we are about to see a dramatic demonstration of just how effective carbon pricing has been on electricity emissions, and that could have dire consequences for Tasmanian wholesale electricity prices in the medium term if rainfall declines to below average.
    With repeal of the carbon price, the emissions intensity of electricity system is set to rise by 1.5-3.5 per cent. And that makes it a reasonable bet that emissions on the National Electricity Market will increase this financial year for only the second time in six years, even if absolute demand for electricity continues to decline…
    Why so?
    In the words of respected analyst Hugh Saddler it seems likely “that emissions reductions over the past year may have been “borrowed” from the future”. The suggestion is that by selling down power reserves, hydro operators may have been shorting the emissions market.
    And why wouldn’t they? As pointed out in a previous post, hydro benefits from carbon pricing. With the uncertainty in carbon pricing hydro operators have had every incentive to sell as much power as soon as possible…
    Two sets of figures tell the story (SEE GRAPHS)…
    The figures show that Tasmanian hydro generators have been selling electricity into the mainland market at unprecedented rates, drawing down storage levels dramatically since the carbon price was implemented in July 2012.
    Levels in the Gordon, which has almost one-third the total storage capacity, are down to near 20 per cent – levels not seen since the Millennium drought despite significantly above average catchment rainfalls over the last year…
    Rather, by using the inherent flexibility of hydro generation, Basslink provided Tasmanian generators with the opportunity to send power northwards when prices rose in Victoria, and buy back as prices lowered, making money on the arbitrage…
    With no significant extra cost on the generation side, Hydro Tasmania’s before tax profit doubled to $238 million in 20012-13 on the back of a revenue rise of $1 billion to $1.57 billion. Of course, with the majority of that hydro generation still being served into Tasmania, the large part of that profit will have been borne by Tasmanian consumers…
    What does it mean for future emissions and prices?
    It is inevitable that hydro generation will be scaled back significantly. Firstly, Victorian prices will drop back to pre-carbon prices of around $30 megawatt hour so there will be no price signal for net export. The more than 2000 gigawatt hours supplied into Victoria by hydro in each of the last two years will be picked up by brown coal generation adding an extra 2.5 million tonnes CO2 emissions to the NEM…
    That all makes the politics of Tasmanian electricity once again front and centre especially with Tasmanian PUP senator Jacqui Lambie and her “kennel mates” quite unashamed in imposing their interests on the national agenda…
    https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/15/policy-politics/how-much-will-tassie-pay-shorting-carbon-price

    10

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    Good for you Australians! Once upon a time The Netherlands were considered leading nation in various matters. With the abolition of the carbon tax you show to the world you taken the role of The Netherlands

    60

  • #
    Dan

    Milne is off her medication again.

    110

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Milne – “I think at some point we will have a website of climate criminals …”

    http://australianpolitics.com/2014/07/15/christine-milne-carbon-tax-repeal-speech.html

    70

    • #

      Damnit! I’m disappointed at not being identified as a “climate criminal”.

      Perhaps it’s not such a bad thing when the witness (Milne) reports:

      When we look at the temperature of the planet rising, let us look at the climate science. The fact of the matter is we are on track for four to six degrees of warming. That means people will not survive. …

      We also have ocean acidification and warming. We have calcium shelled creatures in our oceans unable to form new shells, a simplification of the food chain in the marine environment. We are seeing a loss of coral reefs around the world and we are seeing more extreme and more intense weather events.

      Just imagine her showing up a a cop shop to make a complaint. :-)

      70

      • #
        bobl

        Me too, how do I nominate. Of couse all those things she mentions that are so devasting has oviously been caused by global warmi…. Oops I mean global – no warming at all.

        Cause / Effect hey Milney, obviously a real observer of the scientific process. /sarc

        50

      • #

        Utter nonsense she speaks- brainwashed and brainwashing.they would have us in chains, or worse!

        70

    • #
      the Griss

      I think there is well enough evidence to say that this awful creature called Milne,

      is a very, very stupid creature, and a very, very ignorant one.

      90

    • #
      Angry

      The greens (REDS) should be first on the list of Climate Criminals !!!!!!!!!!

      11

  • #

    UPDATE: This could take days. Weds – The repeal has gone before the Senate today. Labor and the Greens are dragging the debate out with speeches. “Filibustering” according to Finance Minister Mathias Corman (The Australian). More debate is due tonight. But the Senate has agreed to extend sitting hours after Friday and keep coming back until this is resolved. They were due to start a 5 week break on Friday. (See Sky News too). This doesn’t look like being resolved today. (SMH)

    Sydney Morning Herald: It [The government] was concerned that while all eight cross-bench senators say they are committed to consigning the carbon tax to history in a final vote, as many as three might baulk at the use of a guillotine to bring an end debate and force that vote.

    In a further sign the government had lost exclusive control of the legislative timetable, the Climate Change Authority bill was removed from the list of those to be considered, supposedly at the insistence of the PUP.

    Sources said the CCA bill, the purported vehicle for Mr Palmer’s proposed ”dormant” emissions trading scheme, will not be presented this week. Fairfax understands there is also last-minute discussion over Mr Palmer’s belated inclusion of India in the basket of countries to which the CCA would be required to look when recommending that Australia should activate its dormant ETS.

    60

    • #
      scaper...

      The main focus in on the repeal then deal with the other rubbish by cutting the funding in the guise of dealing with the budget.

      More than one way to slice and dice a watermelon.

      80

    • #
      bobl

      I think they will try to stretch it till after the 18th when refunding the tax becomes complicated and expensive in the hope they’ll be able to brand TA a fibber about refunds. I suggest gagging debate before then.

      70

      • #
        bobl

        Arggh,
        I think I just worked out the ploy, if they go past the 18th the tax collectors electricity companies have to hand the tax to the government. To hand it back to the public will take a money bill in the parliament that has to be passed by the senate!

        70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I merely wish to register my displeasure and disillusionment with the Australian political process.
      A tax which had no sound basis in science, economics, or democracy should be repealed.

      60

    • #
      DonS

      Don’t worry Jo. With a 5 week holiday in the offing they will all be trying to get out of Canberra on Friday afternoon.
      It would be interesting to check what travel arrangements have been made, might give a clue to when they will finally do their job.
      I would guess that all the major parts of the bills will be voted on Friday morning, then the unseemly rush for the airport will begin.

      30

  • #
    ColA

    Milne off her meds!!

    we are on track for four to six degrees of warming

    she if off with the fairies in Lala land.
    It is criminal that we actually pay this LOOPY to sprout B******* and mislead the people.
    Please tell me that there was someone in the Senate that had the balls to stand up to her [snip - lets stick to insults that are substantiated with exact quotes. Thanks. - Jo]

    60

    • #
      Winston

      MattB,

      You’re our resident Green. Do you really wish to suggest that Milne’s delusional rant about being on track for 4-6 degrees of warming is an even remotely logical and considered conclusion from the rise in temperature seen this century? If so please explain, I’m all ears.

      Also, do you similarly advocate criminalising people such as myself who remain unconvinced by rampant and delusional alarmism in the face of a litany of failed predictions and inaccuracies in the so called settled science, or do you think that your fearless leader is a few sandwiches short of a picnic? Perhaps we should all wear a yellow badge stitched on our lapels to bear the mark of the Gaia infidel? A tattoo perhaps? About the right speed for her philosophy I would have thought- if the jackboot fits, wear it I say.

      It must be really gratifying to know that you’ve thrown your lot in with such intellectual giants as Ms. Milne, who is increasingly making her pseudo-religious intolerance and crypto-fascist intentions palpably clear to all and sundry.

      80

      • #
        Mattb

        1) NO I’d not put my money on “right on track for 4-6 degrees” although noting it’s without a timeframe… it does appear to be above that i understood to be IPCC worst case.

        2) No public lampooning is good enough for me:) I hope those here are as kind.

        NB: Mattb is not a member of or employed by the greens.

        22

        • #
          manalive

          NB: Mattb is not a member of or employed by the greens …

          Illeism is usually a sign of narcissism.

          20

        • #
          bobl

          Um, This century is mentioned Mattb, see my post about the utter implausibility of this. 6 degrees at the current rate (per IPCC data of 0.35 degrees of CO2 mediated temperature rise over 150 years) will take about 2571 years by my calculation IF the temp CO2 relationship was linear, since it’s a logarithm it’ll be more like 6 doublings or 16000 years based on 225 years for the first doubling. Seems logical that since we are 15000 years into an interglacial that on average lasts 11000 years we might be overtaken by the next ice-age well before your hero Christine gets her way Matt.

          So do you reckon Milne was talking about 16000 years from now Matt?

          C’mon, or are you math challenged too?

          30

          • #
            Mattb

            Sorry Bobl I was replying to Winston and there’s no link so I was just clarifying that there was no timeframe. If you are referring to your 29.2 I don’t see the relevance sorry.

            03

          • #
            bobl

            No relevance?

            You imply that without a time frame such warming is possible and in 29.2 I show how at current rates that would happen in about 16000 years assuming the next ice age didn’t get us first. So do you still claim 6 degrees is possible in any sensible timeframe say under 500 years? Given the possibilities for even iceages worth of natural global cooling over the timeframe of Interest (16000 years) What do you think sportsbet would put on it being hotter then (in 16000 years)?

            Given the realities of this, Do you think Milne’s forecast of up to 6 degrees could even remotely come to pass within 86 years, or are we correct in saying she is deluded?

            ( Personally I can show mathematically that more than 5.2 degrees is highly unlikely even if the atmosphere was ALL CO2 – that proof is trivial )

            30

            • #
              Mattb

              well your calcs are based on some fairly rubber assumptions. I agreed I can’t see it happening by the end of the century. your maths proof re: 100% CO2 is likely pretty dodgy too as you’d write off the whole AGW thing in 2 minutes. You may want to pass your “proof” to Jo as it seems a damn site easier than inventing a new field of fourier transforms… I mean send it in and I’m sure you’ll get your own thread with headline.

              04

              • #
                bobl

                Mattb,
                My calcs are based on the warming since 1850, the IPCC attribution of CO2 to warming, and the log law relationship between CO2 and temperature of Svante Arrhenius.

                Yep, so rubbery those, well the IPCC attribution is probably grossly wrong, on the high side… so 32000 years is probably a better bet, but you know, sometimes it’s better to use the warmies own assumptions so that they don’t think your sums are so “rubbery”.

                As for 5.8 (oops memory lapse) degree limit, that’s easy.

                Fact – CO2 is absorbing 85% of the energy in it’s stopband, and can’t absorb any more than the extra 15% without violating energy conservatiom.

                Fact – temperature of the earth’s surface is 33 degrees above theoretical ( well some will say it’s less but let’s use the warmies number hey)

                Let’s go all out and ascribe for arguments sake all that 33 degree warming to CO2 shall we, so now if we absorb the 15 % of energy that’s left what do we get 15/85 × 33 = 5.8 degrees and that’s if all the atmosphere was CO2 and all warming caused by CO2 and not EG the gravity well. How likely is Milnes 6 degree warming for a mere doubling now?

                Matt, learn some math for gaia’s sake, it’s really useful in showing up crap.

                10

          • #
            Mattb

            “Um, This century is mentioned Mattb,”

            Where… serious question. I don’t see it in this thread?

            03

        • #
          Winston

          Matt,
          I believe most here would give people like yourself the benefit of the doubt, even in your most disingenuous moments, merely for having the courage to engage in a conversation of sorts. However, even you must admit that the alarmist side has latterly given an absolute embarrassment of lampooning riches to skeptics, while the latter have the climate observations, at least for the present, completely on their side.

          The feeble excuses your side of the fence offer for lack of predictive accuracy beggars belief really.

          I personally am happy to be proven wrong if I am and will acknowledge as such should that arise, however alarmists have clearly demonstrated that they will NEVER admit they are in error no matter what, even if the facts of the matter become undeniable and plainly evident, they will continue to deny, deny, deny. I fear for their collective sanity, what is left of it, being tied to the mast of a slowly sinking ship.

          61

          • #
            Mattb

            “I personally am happy to be proven wrong”

            Why? If you’re wrong we’re cooked as bro…

            If I’m wrong then temps don’t rise and wonderful CO2 plant food will grow our foodstuffs beyond my wildest dreams. I’d be bloody stoked to be wrong.

            04

            • #
              Backslider

              If I’m wrong then temps don’t rise and wonderful CO2 plant food will grow our foodstuffs beyond my wildest dreams. I’d be bloody stoked to be wrong.

              Start getting happy.

              70

            • #
              the Griss

              ” I’d be bloody stoked to be wrong”

              You must spend most of your time “stoked” !!..

              or is that “toked”

              40

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, lost it completely, from the LIA to now 150 years including an awakening sun and the CO2 logarithmic relationship guaranteeing that each rise in CO2 causes LESS warming than the last with only 50% attributable to CO2 (per IPCC) just 0.7 degrees ( including recent falls) or 0.35 degrees attributable to CO2. Milne- for future temperature rise over now only 86 years, with a cooling Sun, falling temperatures over the first 14 years of the century and predicted by the warmist UK Met until 2020, the same log law applying and same rate of CO2 rise some NINE TIMES larger at 6 degrees or a rate about 15 times larger than all warming since the LIA and about 30 times larger than the just experienced CO2 mediated warming rate (per IPCC).

      Yup, I suspect there are men in white coats on their way to see you Christine, and they’re not climate scientists. Geez some people are soooo scientifically illiterate, it’s just not funny. During her rehabilitation I think they need to look at her math skills.

      60

  • #
  • #
    pat

    posted 6.23pm:

    16 July: Sky News: Tempers rise as carbon tax fight drags on
    The Abbott government has been trying in vain to repeal the carbon tax for days, even vowing to keep senators in the chamber until they agree to abolish it, after botching it in the Senate last week.But that threat had little impact on Wednesday, with Labor and the Australian Greens chewing through hours of time debating just one amendment – much to the annoyance of coalition senators.’After about 40 hours of debate in relation to these measures in this place we still don’t have a resolution,’ government Senate Leader Eric Abetz railed in question time.
    The cabinet minister left to handle the filibuster was Mathias Cormann, who eventually stopped answering the onslaught of questions from irate opposition senators…
    But the stage is set for a showdown on Thursday…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/07/16/tempers-rise-as-carbon-tax-fight-drags-on.html

    THanks Pat – Jo

    30

  • #
    pat

    16 July: 7 News: AAP: Hospital visit for ill Xenophon
    The nature of his complaint was not revealed.
    “He has been released and is currently taking some time to rest,” the spokesman said.
    The South Australian, who sits on the crossbench, faces a heavy workload this week with the upper house ordered to sit for extended hours until it deals with priority legislation, including a bill to scrap the carbon tax.
    “He is expected to be back (at work) this week,” the spokesman said.
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24478790/hospital-visit-for-ill-xenophon/

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    Never before has the Senate been exposed so publicly as useless.

    Its original valid concept was a house of review for states rights, part of the drive for Federation.

    However the current senators are generally not representative of any state, just a mess of party appointees often with no particular skills, not even counting Ms Lambie would could not get a job anywhere. The basic problem is that it is run on party lines, not state lines, so it is a disaster and anti democratic. Then you get Steven Conroy, the world’s worst minister who was minister for Communications, wasted tens of billions on his drinks coaster plan and still sits in parliament even though no one voted for him.

    Now we have the appalling spectacle of the obese self evidently self indulgent Palmer, an offensive opportunist forcing legislation on the lower house, against every concept of democracy. The Senate needs to go, or to deal with issues exclusively on the basis of states’ rights. The only argument allowed should be that the member for Tasmania has a problem that the bill is against the best interests of Tasmanians and against not the best interests of Clive Palmer or Bill Shorten or Christine Milne so they can frustrate the democratically elected House of Representatives where the Greens finally have only a single member.

    It is to be hoped in the double dissolution which is surely to come, that Palmer is banned from the Senate and not allowed in the chamber. Under the electoral act, no one should be financially beholden to anyone in parliament. At the very least, what is happening with the PUP party should be illegal under the Electoral Act. These senators are supposed to represent their electors and no one else. They are not supposed to be employees of Clive Palmer.

    40

  • #
    pat

    16 July: News Ltd: John Rolfe: How the ‘carbon benchmark addendum’ (and the Senate) are putting carbon tax refunds at risk
    CONSUMERS risk losing more than $200 million of carbon tax refunds unless the Senate passes the repeal bill this week.
    This is because a little-known clause written into wholesale electricity contracts — which backdates the tax’s axing to July 1 — expires on Friday.
    Most major electricity retailers had vowed to refund (or credit) customers for the collective $11.8 million of carbon costs added to electricity bills each day since the start of the new financial year.
    But some are beginning to hesitate.
    AGL, which has nearly four million customers, yesterday said “if the carbon tax passes, customers will be credited from 1 July 2014”. But it then added that it was operating on the basis the repeal legislation would be passed this week…READ ON
    http://www.news.com.au/national/how-the-carbon-benchmark-addendum-and-the-senate-are-putting-carbon-tax-refunds-at-risk/story-fncynjr2-1226991483237

    10

  • #
    Gerry

    There needs to be a website that tracks all this BS that is going on and explains it in language we all understand …..simple time frames and names named ….there has been such a array of comings and goings of people and legislation and parliamentary games going on it’s hard for many of us to keep up with it …

    20

  • #
  • #
    ren

    A further decrease in solar activity means more changes in ozone and blocking the southern polar vortex. It will be cold in Australia.
    http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.gif

    20

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Will Labor and the green wreckers walk into the Palmer attempt to use the Senate for his personal attack on the Queensland Premier, stand by for more shenanigans or is the Golden invite for Tony Abbott to chance his hand at a Double Dissolution and hope the electorate responds by opting for his party in the chaos that follows – and if he stares them down and allows the PUP machinations to play out in the Senate, will he be in the same weak position as Kevin Rudd in not pulling the DD trigger and the real story is being played out in real strategy or just allowing Clive Palmer to B**stardize the Parliamentary process for his own personal reasons.

    And will Malcolm rise in the government cabinet to challenge and try and force an unholy alliance with the Greens and save the day and the carbon tax but in reverse of the Abbott coup that ousted him from leadership. Days of our lives tick?? tick. Of course if that happened the happenstance lunch with Clive in that Canberra Restaurant might have some significance, or not!! Time will tell, or not!!

    10

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    The only reason the Carbon Tax will go is that Palmer does not want to pay $6M a year personally, or even a tiny fraction of it. That is certain. If he had to take the $12M and he has paid the $6M for last year, he will not contemplate another year of paying the useless carbon tax. The real and immediate risk for Abbott is that petulant Palmer is too puffed on his ego driven high risk, look at me strategy to even act in his own interest.

    Palmer’s own team members will tire of his histrionics too. They will learn from him that no one keeps their promises and to his suprise, will copy his style. The real concern is that rudderless, they will then drift to the Greens, illogical ‘ex’ communist extremists who currently dictate policy to the weak ALP under the weakest leader in recent memory, a man who gave brown nosing new meaning, Bill Shorten. They are already advised full time by a former Greens strategist. However the new Senators will ultimately face up to the realization that they will lose their plum jobs in a double dissolution and go back to obscurity with no pension.

    So Abbott will wear them down, let them enjoy their sudden fame and settle into a comfortable existence and after one year in power for the coalition in the Lower House, in September if the new senators continue to frustrate, they will be confronted with reality by a man who does not threaten unless he means it. For now, Abbott is content to let them wear themselves out throwing punches which do not connect and Abbott is riding them and wants this tax gone. The second round will be interesting. With not least a masters degree in Politics from Oxford, a Rhodes Scholar groomed for politics and many years of experience as a Government minister and a boxer’s experience as a fighter, I would not underestimate Abbott and he will achieve what is needed with patience and pressure. If that fails, he will pick his time.

    Meanwhile, it is so frustrating. Imagine. Watching the senate on TV. Who would have thought that useless lot were worth watching while some nut in the public gallery sang “we will overcome”.

    30

  • #
    pat

    posted 2 mins ago:

    17 July: ABC: Emma Griffiths: Live blog: Senate looks set to push through carbon tax repeal
    Tony Abbott’s promise to “axe the tax” looks set to be fulfilled by the Senate in the next few hours…
    Follow ABC News Online’s live blog for updates and commentary as they happen…
    10.19: Simon Cullen: Earlier this morning, the Senate voted down a Labor amendment which would’ve converted the carbon tax to a floating carbon price…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/live-blog-coalition-in-bid-to-push-through-carbon-tax-repeal/5603830

    00

  • #
    pat

    memo to Labor/Greens & CAGW friends:

    17 July: Bloomberg: Mario Parker: Hungry U.S. Power Plant Turns to Russia for Coal Shipment
    When New Hampshire’s largest utility needed to rebuild coal supplies after the past frigid winter, it turned to Russia rather than Appalachia in the U.S. Northeast or Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.
    The Doric Victory, a bulk carrier the length of two football fields, transported the fuel almost 4,000 miles (6,436 kilometers) from Riga, Latvia, last month to Public Service of New Hampshire’s Schiller power plant in Portsmouth, a 150-megawatt facility that’s produced electricity since 1952…
    Utilities in the U.S. are scrambling for coal, on pace to increase imports 26 percent this year, as railroad bottlenecks slow deliveries and electricity demand climbs with an improving economy. Russia, the world’s third-largest exporter of the fuel, will boost shipments 3.9 percent to 106 million metric tons this year, IHS Energy forecasts, part of President Vladimir Putin’s plan to expand Russia’s role in the global coal market.
    “Everyone’s aware that a number of plants have low stockpiles, so you hear Russian coal and they say, ‘Oh wow, people must really be desperate,’” James Stevenson, Houston-based director of North American coal at IHS, said in a July 8 telephone interview…
    ***In 2012, Putin pledged to spend $120 billion in public and private funds to expand Russia’s coal mining capacity and boost exports through 2030. The country has the second-largest reserves behind the U.S., government data show.
    Russia’s abundant supply of natural gas, also used to generate electricity, gives it the ability to flood the seaborne coal market, the U.S. Energy Department says.
    ***Exports from Russia have swelled 94 percent from January 2010 through May, data compiled by Bloomberg show…
    U.S. utilities burned 30 million tons of coal inventories in the first quarter, EIA data show. March was the coldest for the month since 2002 in the contiguous 48 U.S. states, according to the National Climatic Data center, boosting power demand. In spring, an increase in oil and ethanol transport clogged the railways and slowed efforts by power generators to rebuild supply…
    ***Some utilities have as little as 20 days of reserves, Bill Davison, vice president of thermal coal sales at Alpha Natural Resources Inc. (ANR), said last month at a conference in New York…
    “If you are on the Atlantic Coast, you have a chance to buy imported coal,” Stevenson said. “If you’re a utility you have to act now and throughout the second half of the year in case there’s a colder winter than last year.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/hungry-u-s-power-plant-turns-to-russia-for-coal-shipment.html

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T Holy exploding Yamal Batman!

    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/large-crater-appears-at-the-end-of-the-world/

    Hopefully the “One Tree” was not hurt in the formation of this new ‘crater’…

    00

  • #
    scaper...

    Third reading of the repeal. Milne up squawking how the planet will cook. What an idiot!

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***Poor Roston, Karoly, etc.
    they need to read today’s Coal story in Bloomberg posted above, by Mario Parker, & cut the CAGW rhetoric:

    16 July: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Scientists Take Issue With Rupert Murdoch’s Remarks on Climate Change
    ***Poor Australia. It’s responsible for just a tiny fraction of the global warming that’s occurred so far and is already bearing much of the punishment.
    Rupert Murdoch, one of Australia’s most famous sons, lamented as much in an interview this week when he dismissed grave risks from climate change and cautioned against policy overreaction…
    The same day the interview aired, scientists affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study that attributes southwestern Australia’s 40-year rainfall decline to human influence…
    Current scientific research suggests that Murdoch is wrong here on a number of accounts, or, to be charitable, is providing insufficient context for us to know what he’s talking about…
    Murdoch’s other climate remarks call to mind common anti-science talking points.
    I emailed what he said, as reported in the Guardian, to the two scientists who conducted the Nature Geoscience study, and to another who wrote a commentary in the same issue. David John Karoly, a University of Melbourne professor who wrote the commentary, said about the interview: “It is hard to know or even guess what Rupert Murdoch’s statements are based on.”
    The Earth’s climate does vary on long time scales. What is remarkable about manmade climate change is its speed. Usually, it takes the world much longer to change phases — “many thousands of years,” said Tom Delworth, one of the authors of the new Australia study. (He specified that he was speaking only on his own behalf.)…
    Murdoch says in the interview that the worst-case scenario is a 3 degree Celsius rise in temperatures over a century, and that only a third of that would be manmade. “Wrong,” Karoly said. The worst-case is closer to 5 degrees C, almost all human-driven. “There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that human factors would cause only 1 [degree] C warming by 2100.”
    The recent shift in Australian politics could lead to a repeal of the nation’s carbon tax. Would that repealing the laws of nature were as easy.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-16/scientists-take-issue-with-rupert-murdoch-s-remarks-on-climate-change.html

    00

  • #
    JoKah

    Yes 39-32

    20

    • #
      philjourdan

      Beat me by 2 minutes! ;-)

      10

    • #
      Winston

      So closes a chapter, a chapter in a book which catalogues the time when representative democracy in Australia was over-ridden by force of saturation bombing media propaganda, pseudo-science and political chicanery in wilful contradiction to the needs of the greater population at large.

      The carbon tax, while an utter abomination in every aspect of its conception and implementation, is a mere shadow of the catastrophe that would be an ETS, where the banking elite would be allowed to gamble at the expense of the livelihoods and survival of the great unwashed to feather their already overly luxurious nests, and to further engorge their bloated carcasses at the expense of those less fortunate (and with greater moral foundation) than themselves, and more particularly at the expense of those who provide practical service to the community in terms of producing tangible items of real and purposeful benefit to others.

      The politicians on the left, though not exclusively so, have shown a complete disdain for the people and their long term interests, and in my opinion should be held personally and financially to account for their actions. Until such an example is made, they will consider themselves to be untouchable and will act accordingly, without fear of retribution even in the face of bald faced deception and barely concealed corruption.

      00

  • #
    Matty

    UPDATE:- It’s Gone …:-)

    00

  • #
    JoKah

    I forgot to add “ITS GONE”

    00

  • #
    philjourdan

    John Riddell says:
    July 16, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    It just passed.

    I was watching as it happened.

    39 votes to 32

    That is PDT. Congratulations!

    00

  • #
    pat

    hip hip hooray…

    00

  • #
    Aaron M

    Im so happy, I could just ****!

    00

  • #
    Aaron M

    *clap* ;)

    00

  • #
    pat

    many thanx also to jo, david, anthony watts, christopher monckton, andrew bolt, and all the rest who have fought so hard to bring some sanity back into the debate.

    more to do, but what a great moment.

    10

  • #
    Joe

    The carbon tax was never about changing the temperature on planet earth, I think we realised that a long time back. That was just a convenient emotional ploy to sell the story. In reality this was just a dressed up broad based consumption tax. So it goes away and without a shred of doubt we will be facing other consumption taxes to make up the shortfall. Most here chant the ‘small government’ mantra but I would be deluded if I were to expect that that ‘small’ would infer a smaller tax base than we have right now. We are already collecting a few percent less tax than in the Howard years and we are not likely to be rolling in surpluses.
    The Government has already proposed increases in taxation on transport fuels (which were exempt of the carbon tax) and speculation on broadening and increasing of the GST, royalties on coal were increased by WA and Qld Goverments – all seemingly without any argy bargy from those who were so vocal on the carbon tax.

    00