so why are the far right fearful of


If you could save money by cutting your carbon footprint ... would you, could you.

if we cut our carbon footprint, other nations would follow and this would be the turning point of humanity controlling global climate.  

a carbon tax is just an easy way of attaining the world we desire.


so come on far right, don't be a stick in the mud, join the rest of us over here.

Combet admits carbon tax an option


Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has given a clear sign the Government is prepared to consider introducing a carbon tax.

Before the election Prime Minister Julia Gillard ruled out using a tax to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Greens advocate a tax as an interim measure and the chief of BHP has also endorsed the idea.

Mr Combet says the Government is determined to put a price on carbon and the new parliamentary committee on climate change will consider all options.

"In the political reality in the formation of the Government, the circumstances are a bit different than we anticipated," he said.

"It does mean that alternative policy options will come onto the table; we will be looking at the various options for the development of a carbon price as I said and we'll thoroughly subject them to proper evaluation.

"Things will be stress tested, the proper modelling and work and expert advice will be done, but serious work will be performed to try to develop the best possible option for this economic reform."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has repeatedly labelled the Government's emissions trading scheme as a great big new tax, however Mr Combet says the Government will meet "head-on" any attacks on its policy.

"It's very easy for someone to be populist and opportunist in the way that Tony Abbott is, but we will take his argument head-on, because at the core of what he is putting is economic irresponsibility," he said.

He says putting a price on carbon is basic economic reform, and Mr Abbott is being reckless and negative.

It's experimental, deceptive and dicey, this and will take it's toll on our nations living standard. It's not just a tax on the mining industry, this tax will trickle down to all goods and services....is like a good-will, environmental GST, which fundamentally insults our intelligence due to the false reporting of a said 'scientific consensus' based on 15 year old data now telling us a very different story.

Of which is ....

More scientists than not, are not convinced that global warming is man-made.

End of story.

:) Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us all.

mellie wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:16am:

It's experimental, deceptive and dicey, this and will take it's toll on our nations living standard. It's not just a tax on the mining industry, this tax will trickle down to all goods and services....is like a good-will, environmental GST, which fundamentally insults our intelligence due to the false reporting of a said 'scientific consensus' based on 15 year old data now telling us a very different story. Of which is .... More scientists than not, are not convinced that global warming is man-made. End of story. :) Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us all.

_/_/_/




choose products and services that are beneficial to the environment. the products and services of the new economy. they will not be including a price on carbon.


as for what the scientists say ... put it a side for a moment.

every action has a reaction.


burn coal and pollute our oceans and our air ... of course this effects the planetary system.

it would be on par with injecting a drug into your vein.


coal is an addiction

denial of this addiction is a symptom of being addicted to coal.

those people protecting the coal industry requires our help and our understanding.

Mellie, we will not leave you behind.

Everything will attract a carbon-tax deary, right down to the price you currently pay for toilet paper (enviro or not) as the energy used to truck it to the store will transfer the carbon-tax price increase down to the consumer.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and guess where this will be?

::)...You are completely delusional if you cant see what's happening here, and or why.


An experimental minority-government imposing experimental carbon-taxes on the basis of a dubious AGW-theory is not my idea of responsible.

Tell Gillard to get herself back to the drawing board.....she needs to think things through again.

::)

Rudd woke up to the fact that his penny's Ration-and-Tax (RAT) Scheme would destroy jobs.

Now comes a GALP Carbon-tax.

If GALP want to cut the production of harmful carbon dioxide, it will cause job losses in coal, power generation, cement, steel, farming and tourism. Also, they should be focusing on cutting all emissions, not just ones that suit BHP's uranium agenda in order to get it across the table.
Since when did Greens or ALP start taking environmentally friendly policy direction from mining giants anyway.....this in itself is a concern.

If job protection, and our economy is important to them, then we must think of clever ways to clean up our act the right way.

Are we a democracy or a corpocracy?

Might I suggest a gradual phasing in and transfer to a nuclear alternative, in the mean time, we should invest in renewable alternatives, as our uranium wont last forever (China really want it), this and we need to find cleaner and renewable ways of re-generating industry/jobs in place of those being phased out sensibly and gradually in the fossil fuel industries.

As for power subsidies/rebates for low-income families, (which I doubt will occur anyway).. Gillard needs reminding that the money we get from Canberra is the money we sent to Canberra in the first place, so economically, this just wont do.

A tax and subsidy policy always replaces real jobs in regional industry with fake jobs in bureaucratic pencil-pushing money laundering departments in Canberra....but that's another story, so lets not go there tonight, shall we.

8-) Smarten up...  

mellie, do you think polluting our environment is a good thing ... also do you think burning coal creates pollution?

____ wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 7:39am:

mellie, do you think polluting our environment is a good thing ... also do you think burning coal creates pollution?

And what does 'pollution' have to do with a tax on Co2???

The travesty of this notion is that 81% of voters supported the two major parties whose policies included NO CARBON TAX. How about taking this policy to the next election instead and see how the country supports it? after all that might only be months away anyhow.

what we need is a high pollution tax on imports, and penalties for nations with high levels of pollution (e.g. China & India). Shipping goods to Australia creates a hell of a lot of pollution considering many of these imports could be produced in Australia. If we truly going to be serous about pollution we must first Tax Imports.

The cream of Australian business has - overnight, it seems - undergone a transformation from climate-change sceptics into environmental warriors.

Each day brings forth a new prophet, proclaiming the virtues either of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax; or, as Tony Abbott put it during the election campaign just last month, a ''Great Big New Tax On Everything''.

If you find this sudden metamorphosis perplexing, given the vehement opposition from the business lobby in recent years, fear not, dear reader, for you are not alone. Just imagine how Tony feels.

BHP Billiton's Marius Kloppers started the ball rolling last week, advocating a hybrid system, with a carbon tax and a limited emissions scheme - an idea quickly endorsed by business lobby groups.

There followed the amazing spectacle of Andrew Forrest grudgingly backing Kloppers, calling for the government to introduce a carbon tax. Even more astounding was the TRUenergy boss, Richard McIndoe, advocating the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.

How has it come to this? A cynic may conclude that with the Greens being elevated into a powerful new force in Parliament, business leaders see a carbon price as inevitable and a certain urgency has arisen to take control of the debate.

How has it come to this? A cynic may conclude that with the Greens being elevated into a powerful new force in Parliament, business leaders see a carbon price as inevitable and a certain urgency has arisen to take control of the debate.

Before we delve into the excruciating complexity of the whole thing, let's just dispose of a ''Great Big Myth About Climate'' that has grown up around the debate in this country.

The big lie, almost universally believed by Australians, is that after the failure of the Copenhagen summit to come to an agreement, we would be foolish to go it alone.

The argument goes: why should we impose a huge cost on our export industries and our standard of living when the rest of the world has walked away from taking action on climate change?

Wrong. The rest of the world is doing something. Australia and the US - the two heaviest emitters of carbon per head of population - are the laggards. In fact, 32 nations now have emissions trading schemes in place. We're not talking obscure countries in exotic locations. Try Britain, the country with its flag in the top left hand corner of ours. Think all of the European Union. And then, of course, there is New Zealand.

Even China, the world's biggest polluter and the country accused of torpedoing a global agreement on climate change at Copenhagen, has imposed stringent undertakings upon itself to reduce emissions, with a commitment to cut 40 per cent per unit of GDP by 2020.

And before you accuse China of simply paying lip service to the idea, a fortnight ago it virtually shut down its steelmaking industry in an effort to meet emissions reduction targets it gave several years ago.

The workings of emissions schemes and carbon taxes - and the debate about which is superior in reducing carbon dioxide emissions - is devilishly complicated. But the unavoidable truth is that both will increase the price of conventional energy sources. Green policies in Britain are expected to add 33 per cent to the cost of electricity by 2020. That's for consumers. For industry, it could be as much as 43 per cent.

Those two factors - complexity and cost - have allowed our leaders to create a smokescreen so thick that it threatens to completely hide the carbon.

So which is superior, a trading scheme or a tax? Both attempt to achieve the same end but via different means. A trading scheme sets a quantity of carbon dioxide emissions and allows the market to work out the price. A carbon tax, on the other hand, sets a price and allows the market to determine the quantity of emissions.

Most economists believe a trading scheme is a more efficient means of achieving the goal. And if such a scheme were global, Australian coal producers could buy credits from those replanting rainforests in other countries.

That's not to say a carbon tax wouldn't work. Where both schemes get messy, however, is the extent of exemptions and compensation handed out to emitters and consumers.

It is also useful at this point to understand that almost everyone putting in their 2¢ worth right now has a vested interest.

Marius Kloppers last week proposed an emissions trading scheme for the handful of power companies but a carbon tax on just about everything else, with three notable omissions.

Transport (that includes motorists), agriculture and export industries were to be exempted from the tax. Those three categories just happen to be the three main sources of pollution. Under the Kloppers proposal, that pretty much puts the entire burden of paying for carbon emissions on a handful of companies in the power industry.

Kloppers apparently has deep personal convictions about the need to shift towards more environmentally friendly fuels in the future. But he also has a responsibility to act in the best interests of his company.

So, too, does McIndoe, whose company owns the Yallourn Power Station in Victoria, one of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide in this country, and a staunch opponent of the Rudd government's trading scheme.

This week, he ridiculed Kloppers's proposal, labelling it as ''clumsy'', instead calling for, you guessed it, a trading scheme.

If that's left you gobsmacked, you've obviously forgotten that McIndoe extracted the promise of billions of dollars in compensation from the ETS compromise thrashed out by Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull when they were leaders.

That wouldn't be available if only a handful of companies - as opposed to the 1,000 or so that are our biggest carbon polluters - had to pay for emissions.

Prepare yourselves for more gymnastics, for the games have yet to begin. At least it's progress, of a sort.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/theres-a-traffic-jam-on-the-road-to-damascus-20100922-15n0k.html

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:27am:

____ wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 7:39am: mellie, do you think polluting our environment is a good thing ... also do you think burning coal creates pollution? And what does 'pollution' have to do with a tax on Co2???

Because excess carbon, caused by human activity, has caused the planet's climate system to approach a tipping point ... where it will spin out of control.

Excessive carbon is a pollutant ... and the far right is addicted to the pollutant's cause ... coal !!!

At what global temperature will the mass amounts of methane under the permafrost start escaping into the climate system ... a gas 20 times heat trapping than carbon.

Does the far right know?

You seem to forget that the greens threatened to end uranium mining and BHP offered the carbon tax as a tradeoff. Energy companies support it - not from principle - but to end the uncertainity and to get their renewable energy  sections on a firmer financial footing. Be assured that the reasons for these' changes of heart' are nothing whatsoever to do with principle, but rather expediency. If there were no Greens and the Liberal party had a firm majority none of these people would be clamoring for these ETS or carbon taxes.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:36am:

The travesty of this notion is that 81% of voters supported the two major parties whose policies included NO CARBON TAX. How about taking this policy to the next election instead and see how the country supports it? after all that might only be months away anyhow.

As I recall it, Bates, the Coalition was elected on the lowest common denominator of 4 over-simplified factors...

They took 4 petty soundbytes to the election - all of which were parroted ad nauseum ad infinitum - and none of which included any reference to carbon...

Actually, the squawk that I heard most from Lib pollies and parrots was 'STOP THE BOATS' - apparently that divisive non-issue is what got Conservatives into the biggest flocking flap!

I suggest that you review the dominant non-issues peddled by the LibLabs throughout the election campaign - cos they were both avoiding any electorally-toxic discussion of climate change as much as possible...

Hey Bates et al, I just reviewed the Libs' web-site and found some interesting pre-poll propaganda - which didn't get much airplay during the election campaign...

I'm sure you will be fascinated as am I...

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/12/Swan-walks-both-sides-of-the-street-on-carbon-tax.aspx


Quote:

Swan walks both sides of the street on carbon tax 12/08/10 Treasurer Wayne Swan tonight on the 7:30 Report tried to have it both ways on the question of a carbon tax. At such a critical time in the lead up to the election the Treasurer, in one of his most confusing moments, has ruled in - and ruled out - a carbon tax all in the one sentence. Wayne Swan is treating Australians like mugs.    Hockey:    What was it? Was that yes or no? ... The fundamental question is: are you going to rule out a carbon tax in the next term of government? Yes or no?    Swan:    We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out, we have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution, we’re going to do it in a consultative way and we’ll do it in the face of the opposition of the Liberal Party and the Greens again I’m sure. Wayne Swan’s embarrassing failure to respond to a yes or no question succinctly has left the people of Australia confused and concerned. Is Wayne Swan ruling out a carbon tax in the next term of government? Or has Wayne Swan said they’re going to use their Citizens Assembly to bring back a carbon tax? Wayne Swan is walking both sides of the street. It’s too smart by half. Wayne Swan must clarify whether the Labor Party will or won’t introduce a carbon tax.

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/15/Gillard-and-Swan-at-odds-on-carbon-tax.aspx


Quote:

Gillard and Swan at odds on carbon tax 15/08/10 Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are at odds over Labor’s plans to tax carbon pollution. This morning on Meet the Press, Wayne Swan tried to rule out Labor imposing a price on carbon:    SWAN: Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that. What we’ve said is that we will go back and seek to reconstruct a community consensus about how we deal with climate change. We have, we have said that we will review where we are with that in 2012. Ah, we have said that we will have a comprehensive re-evaluation of all our ... of, of, of our approaches. As you know, ah, the Liberals are responsible for defeating the carbon pollution reduction scheme. They voted it down, not once, but twice, but three times. We’ll have a look at where we’re going in 2012. But just half an hour later on Channel 9, Ms Gillard confirmed that her Citizens’ Assembly is nothing more than a smoke-screen for the coming carbon tax:    GILLARD: Our climate change policy comes from someone who believes in climate change, comes from someone who wants to lead a national debate to make sure that we’ve got the community consensus we need for a carbon pollution reduction scheme and a cap on carbon pollution and a price mechanism to get there. Mr Swan is deceiving the Australian public with his claims that Labor won’t implement a carbon tax. Clearly, according to the Prime Minister herself, they will. They are trying to have a bet each. But the reality is they are ducking and weaving and twisting and turning to try to avoid admitting their plans for a big new electricity tax. Today's performances by Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard point to Labor’s dishonest plan to try to hide their carbon tax. They want to try to slide into office relying on their ridiculed Citizens’ Assembly – before whacking higher electricity prices on mums and dads and farmers and pensioners. Labor’s plan for everything always resorts to a big new tax. In contract, the Coalition will take real action on climate change that won’t increase the cost of living, through a $3.2 billion commitment to an emissions reduction fund and a 15,000 strong standing ‘Green Army’.

Here's another one (check out the title): -


http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2008/07/04/Carbon-tax-needs-to-fund-CO2-capture.aspx


Quote:

Carbon tax needs to fund CO2 capture 04/07/08 Carbon capturing technology, known as geosequestration, is the only lasting solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power stations, and should be a big ticket item in Garnaut's interim report on climate change. On the eve of the release of Garnaut's report, Shadow Resources and Energy Minister David Johnston travelled to the Otway CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies in Victoria to be briefed on their successful geosequestration pilot project. Senator Johnston said the carbon-capturing technology was Australia's only hope to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we still rely on coal as our main base load energy source. ''There is no point in placing a carbon tax on items such as electricity and petrol if the Rudd Government doesn't channel some of the income generated towards this very exciting and effective technology,'' Senator Johnston said. Senator Johnston said the Otway project had already sequested 11,000 tonnes of CO2 into a depleted natural gas field in Victoria and had a target of 100,000 tonnes. ''This is safely storing CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.'' Geosequestration, or carbon capture and geological storage is the capture of CO2 from major emission sources such as power stations and industrial facilities; and the transport; the injection; and the long-term storage of CO2 into deep, underground reservoirs, such as depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers that contain unusable, salty water. ''What the Rudd Government needs to come to grips with, is that charging everybody more for their energy needs through a carbon tax doesn't in itself reduce carbon emissions as Australians will not necessarily reduce their consumption, especially if they are compensated for increased costs,'' Senator Johnston said. ''But if we use the income generated to expand on what is considered a world-leading technology in geosequestration, we then have the ability to significantly eat into our carbon dioxide levels in this country.'' For more information about geosequestration go to www.co2crc.com.au

If any of you were in any doubt as to the Lab's intentions, apparently the Libs weren't: -

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/20/Labor-great-big-new-tax.aspx


Quote:

Labor’s great big new tax on everything is coming back...it’s coming back... 20/08/10 "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," – Julia Gillard, The Australian, 20th August 2010 Finally, on the last day of the campaign, Julia Gillard has confirmed what everybody knew: a re-elected Labor Government will legislate for a price on carbon. This great big new tax on everything will mean a higher cost of living for everyone, and will significantly raise electricity prices. The fact that the Greens are likely to have the balance of power in the Senate due to the secret Labor-Green preference deal means that a Labor wins guarantees a carbon tax. Ms Gillard and Mr Swan have been playing sneaky words games this election campaign, asserting that there won’t be a “carbon tax” – when the fact is, the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a carbon tax by another name. Ms Gillard has also gone to the ludicrous lengths of promising to set up a “Citizens’ Assembly” to try and hide the fact that she wants to bring the CPRS back. The truth is out – in Ms Gillard’s own words, a vote for Labor is a vote for the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The only way to stop Labor’s great big new tax on everything is to vote for the Coalition tomorrow.

So, Bates, according to the Libs' own media releases: voters knew that they were voting for a carbon tax!?

But, were the Libs telling porkies then, or are they telling porkies now...

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/09/16/Gillard-walks-away-from-her-Carbon-Tax-promise.aspx


Quote:

Gillard walks away from her Carbon Tax promise 16/09/10 Julia Gillard today walked away from her election-eve promise to oppose a costly carbon tax on Australian house-holders On the Friday before the election Ms Gillard stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax.” (The Australian, 20 August 2010) But today, when asked by media, would she rule out a carbon tax, she blinked: Gillard: Look, we, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving of course the Greens … We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith. Journalist: So you are not ruling it out then? Gillard: Well look ah, you know I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly. Before the election, she unambiguously ruled out a carbon tax. Now, after the election, ruling in or ruling out a carbon tax is now “a little bit silly” according to the PM. It now looks like Julia Gillard is opening the door to a plan by Labor’s partners, the Greens, for a carbon tax. Now, after the election, it appears that Labor has a secret plan to back-flip and support the tax. Before the election, Wayne Swan said: “what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax” (Meet the Press, 15 August 2010). Mr Swan also said: “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out” (7.30 Report, 12 August 2010). Julia Gillard again claimed: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” (Channel 10, 16 August 2010). The Prime Minister was today speaking at a sustainability media event. But it’s now clear she hasn’t been able to sustain her pre-election promises to rule out a carbon tax.

Hmmnnn....note that the 2 selectively-conflicting quotes both refer back to the same article in the Oz!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:16am:

You seem to forget that the greens threatened to end uranium mining and BHP offered the carbon tax as a tradeoff. Energy companies support it - not from principle - but to end the uncertainity and to get their renewable energy  sections on a firmer financial footing. Be assured that the reasons for these' changes of heart' are nothing whatsoever to do with principle, but rather expediency. If there were no Greens and the Liberal party had a firm majority none of these people would be clamoring for these ETS or carbon taxes.

"You seem to forget that the greens threatened to end uranium mining and BHP offered the carbon tax as a tradeoff"

Got any links to back your opinion?


"If there were no Greens and the Liberal party had a firm majority"


There are Greens ... and Liberals lost the election ... time to come to terms with this longweekend.

We live in a world where carbon pollution will no longer be free to dump the cost onto other sectors of the economy ... and the Australian society.

____ wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:11am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:27am: ____ wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 7:39am: mellie, do you think polluting our environment is a good thing ... also do you think burning coal creates pollution? And what does 'pollution' have to do with a tax on Co2??? Because excess carbon, caused by human activity, has caused the planet's climate system to approach a tipping point ... where it will spin out of control. Excessive carbon is a pollutant ... and the far right is addicted to the pollutant's cause ... coal !!! At what global temperature will the mass amounts of methane under the permafrost start escaping into the climate system ... a gas 20 times heat trapping than carbon. Does the far right know?

Carbon (whether 'excess' or natural) is a PLANT FOOD..not a pollutant...

More Co2 = Faster and more luxurious plant growth....

Maybe we should be concentrating on reducing Hydrogen Dioxide instead.....After all it's absolutely lethal in high concentration and is the most corrosive stuff on Earth....

Update: -


Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:39am:

If any of you were in any doubt as to the Lab's intentions, apparently the Libs weren't: - http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/20/Labor-great-big-new-tax.aspx Quote: Labor’s great big new tax on everything is coming back...it’s coming back... 20/08/10 "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," – Julia Gillard, The Australian, 20th August 2010 Finally, on the last day of the campaign, Julia Gillard has confirmed what everybody knew: a re-elected Labor Government will legislate for a price on carbon. This great big new tax on everything will mean a higher cost of living for everyone, and will significantly raise electricity prices. The fact that the Greens are likely to have the balance of power in the Senate due to the secret Labor-Green preference deal means that a Labor wins guarantees a carbon tax. Ms Gillard and Mr Swan have been playing sneaky words games this election campaign, asserting that there won’t be a “carbon tax” – when the fact is, the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a carbon tax by another name. Ms Gillard has also gone to the ludicrous lengths of promising to set up a “Citizens’ Assembly” to try and hide the fact that she wants to bring the CPRS back. The truth is out – in Ms Gillard’s own words, a vote for Labor is a vote for the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The only way to stop Labor’s great big new tax on everything is to vote for the Coalition tomorrow. So, Bates, according to the Libs' own media releases: voters knew that they were voting for a carbon tax!? But, were the Libs telling porkies then, or are they telling porkies now... http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/09/16/Gillard-walks-away-from-her-Carbon-Tax-promise.aspx [quote] Gillard walks away from her Carbon Tax promise 16/09/10 Julia Gillard today walked away from her election-eve promise to oppose a costly carbon tax on Australian house-holders On the Friday before the election Ms Gillard stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax.” (The Australian, 20 August 2010) But today, when asked by media, would she rule out a carbon tax, she blinked: Gillard: Look, we, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving of course the Greens … We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith. Journalist: So you are not ruling it out then? Gillard: Well look ah, you know I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly. Before the election, she unambiguously ruled out a carbon tax. Now, after the election, ruling in or ruling out a carbon tax is now “a little bit silly” according to the PM. It now looks like Julia Gillard is opening the door to a plan by Labor’s partners, the Greens, for a carbon tax. Now, after the election, it appears that Labor has a secret plan to back-flip and support the tax. Before the election, Wayne Swan said: “what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax” (Meet the Press, 15 August 2010). Mr Swan also said: “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out” (7.30 Report, 12 August 2010). Julia Gillard again claimed: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” (Channel 10, 16 August 2010). The Prime Minister was today speaking at a sustainability media event. But it’s now clear she hasn’t been able to sustain her pre-election promises to rule out a carbon tax.

Hmmnnn....note that the 2 selectively-conflicting quotes both refer back to the same article in the Oz!

[/quote]


This would appear to be the article quoted by the Libs - note that the conflicting quotes were contained in the same paragraph: -

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983


Quote:

Julia Gillard's carbon price promise    * Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan    * From: The Australian    * August 20, 2010 12:00AM JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term. It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health. In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step. "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax." This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing. While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed. Earlier this year, then prime minister Kevin Rudd ditched Labor's plans to introduce a carbon price for the next term after the bills failed to pass the Senate. [...]

I, for one, am sick and tired of Lib lies and liars!!

Carbon (whether 'excess' or natural) is a PLANT FOOD..not a pollutant...



_/_/_/


human caused carbon pollution is causing the acidification of the oceans ... destroying and collapsing the food chain.


the further acidification of the oceans will lead to the expelling of poison gas from these acidic oceans, into the atmosphere, killing land base life.


land base life includes humanity.


The far right's addiction to carbon pollution is putting life as we know it at risk.

The far right must face up to their addiction in the same way a heroin addict sooner or later faces up to their own addiction.

____ wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:29am:

Carbon (whether 'excess' or natural) is a PLANT FOOD..not a pollutant... _/_/_/ human caused carbon pollution is causing the acidification of the oceans ... destroying and collapsing the food chain. the further acidification of the oceans will lead to the expelling of poison gas from these acidic oceans, into the atmosphere, killing land base life. land base life includes humanity. The far right's addiction to carbon pollution is putting life as we know it at risk. The far right must face up to their addiction in the same way a heroin addict sooner or later faces up to their own addiction.

Increased carbon dioxide in the oceans means increased phytoplankton growth which increases and strengthens the food chain...

And which particular 'poison gases' will the oceans expell due to acidification?????

And, just incidently, if the oceans ARE still absorbing Co2, that means the oceans are cooling, not heating.....

So much for oceanic heating...

When families are struggling, already have high energy bills, are facing another interest rate hike onto their mortgage -


why exactly would anyone think it is a good idea to whack a new tax on their bills for carbon which will make them shell out more money per month?

Why does ANYONE think it is a good idea to force people to pay more??

Madness.

An Ominous Warning on the
Effects of Ocean Acidification
A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs.
by carl zimmer

The JOIDES Resolution looks like a bizarre hybrid of an oil rig and a cargo ship. It is, in fact, a research vessel that ocean scientists use to dig up sediment from the sea floor. In 2003, on a voyage to the southeastern Atlantic, scientists aboard the JOIDES Resolution brought up a particularly striking haul.

They had drilled down into sediment that had formed on the sea floor over the course of millions of years. The oldest sediment in the drill was white. It had been formed by the calcium carbonate shells of single-celled organisms — the same kind of material that makes up the White Cliffs of Dover. But when the scientists examined the sediment that had formed 55 million years ago, the color changed in a geological blink of an eye.

“In the middle of this white sediment, there’s this big plug of red clay,” says Andy Ridgwell, an earth scientist at the University of Bristol.

In other words, the vast clouds of shelled creatures in the deep oceans had virtually disappeared. Many scientists now agree that this change was caused by a drastic drop of the ocean’s pH level. The seawater became so corrosive that it ate away at the shells, along with other species with calcium carbonate in their bodies. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to recover from this crisis, and for the sea floor to turn from red back to white.


more here

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2241


even the most obvious risks, and the far right choose to deny to try and mask their heroin like addiction to carbon pollution.


and what is even stranger is the far right is split.

some think human caused climate change is crap
&
some think action to slow carbon pollution is required.




No wonder the coalition lost the election ... the moderates in the party had the far right weighing them down.


So where do the coalition supporters stand

denial ... or reducing pollution ... could the party please find a common position !

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:32am:

When families are struggling, already have high energy bills, are facing another interest rate hike onto their mortgage - why exactly would anyone think it is a good idea to whack a new tax on their bills for carbon which will make them shell out more money per month? Why does ANYONE think it is a good idea to force people to pay more?? Madness.

The price of electricity has been rising because of the spending required for infrastructure.

Now do we throw our taxes at the addictive carbon pollution past by spending on coal powered infrastructure ... just so we can replace it in the near future with the renewable energy.

Electricity is rising ... do we make this rise constructive by shifting to the non addictive Green economy, or do we hijack our selves and rejoin the addicted coalition and their carbon pollution reliance.


Either way will mean higher electricity costs ... yet the coalition's addictive path also equals massive increases to everyone's food bill.

Liberal/Nationals = Higher Food Costs For All Australians.

Carbon Pollution is pushing world agriculture towards collapse.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:32am:

When families are struggling, already have high energy bills, are facing another interest rate hike onto their mortgage - why exactly would anyone think it is a good idea to whack a new tax on their bills for carbon which will make them shell out more money per month? Why does ANYONE think it is a good idea to force people to pay more?? Madness.

Remind us again, Android...what rate of GST you reckon that these same struggling families should be paying on all goods and services - not just electricity!?


Don't bother, here 'tis: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284073410/3#3


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 10:03am:

...I do believe Australia's sales tax is far too low. Australia has things ass-backwards. A high direct tax and low indirect tax. I would like to see GST raise to 15-17% and a reshuffling of the tax bands on income tax to prevent brackcreep. I'd also cap the top rate of tax at 40% so we can attract higher income earners to the country. It does work. Mrs Thatcher did this in 1980 to great effect.

You clearly don't understand the difference.

The GST suggestion is a re-jigging of the tax process.

The GST increase helps offset the reduction I would propose in direct taxation and an adjustment to the tax bands.

Where, pray tell, is the reduction on the carbon tax.

Please tell me why you think its a good idea to force struggling families to pay more for energy and not offer any concessions in other areas of their expense.

MY GST suggestion would see decreases in direct tax.

You'd have a carbon tax increase and a reduction in costs of errrrr......nowhere!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:07pm:

You clearly don't understand the difference. The GST suggestion is a re-jigging of the tax process. The GST increase helps offset the reduction I would propose in direct taxation and an adjustment to the tax bands. Where, pray tell, is the reduction on the carbon tax. Please tell me why you think its a good idea to force struggling families to pay more for energy and not offer any concessions in other areas of their expense. MY GST suggestion would see decreases in direct tax. You'd have a carbon tax increase and a reduction in costs of errrrr......nowhere!!!

On the contrary, Android, I quoted you in context and it is you, who are cherry-picking with intent to deceive - given that: almost every proposal to place a price on carbon, includes a level of monetary compensation to vulnerable and disadvantaged (i.e. genuinely struggling) households.

All other socio-economic groups typically represent a disproportionate part of the underlying problem, of excessive energy consumption (direct and indirect), that is being necessarily targeted by placing a price on carbon. Such groups typically have far greater choices.  

These are also the same groups that have already benefited most over the past decade, from a plethora of effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare and tax measures (including reverse-means-tested cuts, subsidies, handouts, deductions, rebates, exemptions and concessions).

As a result, of those effectively-exclusive tax and transfer changes, some such households (purportedly including your own) have received nett annual increases in disposable incomes that exceed to total annual household incomes of those who rely upon welfare payments...

So we put a tax on bills and then you suggest we give people money to pay for the increased bills?

;D

Goodness me this is sounding like a good idea?

Got any more good ones like that?

Oh wait a minute you're probably suggesting we just help out the deadbeats again?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:28pm:

So we put a tax on bills and then you suggest we give people money to pay for the increased bills? ;D Goodness me this is sounding like a good idea? Got any more good ones like that? Oh wait a minute you're probably suggesting we just help out the deadbeats again?

For some more context, perhaps you could explain why you and your well-heeled wife felt entitled to claim the Baby Bonus and that you support the Libs' Paid Parental Leave scheme over that of the Labs...!?

Then, you could again try to justify the costly and reverse-means-tested 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate...!?

Oh, and why is it that the relatively (and mostly absolutely) impoverished populations of China and India must jointly and severally cut back on their relatively meagre energy (and resource) consumption and pollution - before relatively prosperous Westerners should be required to cut back on their obscene levels of energy (and resource) consumption and pollution...!?

1) My 'well heeled' wife (she's like that one!) and I claimed the baby bonus because we were entitled to it, were contributing to the population of Australia, spent the money on all sorts of things related to our little arrival and were the ideal candidates for it.
Just as a side issue in 2007, before tax return time, we paid into Australia through PAYE over $140,000 in tax. Some families don't even earn that, so you don't feel we kinda paid for it???

2) I believe the parental scheme is helpful for families to drop down a wage. It is a big deal. We saw over $200k go out of the door with my wife stopping working. Not exactly smooth sailing losing that is it?
Families need help and they deserve it.

3) The environment is everyone. The world is not destroyed by emissions PER CAPITA. It is destroyed by emissions FULL STOP. Your answer would be for a country to be able to avoid its part by simply increasing its population??
Madness.
You cannot have the rest of us reducing our emissions and India & China growing theirs.

Little fact - All the emissions reductions achieved by Kyoto were wiped out by just Chinese emissions increases FIVE TIMES OVER.

Been to Hong Kong lately? See if you can see more than 5 feel in front of your face? Their emissions are a joke. You want to hinder Australians to counter this do you?
Yeah - good idea.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:48pm:

1) My 'well heeled' wife (she's like that one!) and I claimed the baby bonus because we were entitled to it, were contributing to the population of Australia, spent the money on all sorts of things related to our little arrival and were the ideal candidates for it. Just as a side issue in 2007, before tax return time, we paid into Australia through PAYE over $140,000 in tax. Some families don't even earn that, so you don't feel we kinda paid for it??? 2) I believe the parental scheme is helpful for families to drop down a wage. It is a big deal. We saw over $200k go out of the door with my wife stopping working. Not exactly smooth sailing losing that is it? Families need help and they deserve it. 3) The environment is everyone. The world is not destroyed by emissions PER CAPITA. It is destroyed by emissions FULL STOP. Your answer would be for a country to be able to avoid its part by simply increasing its population?? Madness. You cannot have the rest of us reducing our emissions and India & China growing theirs. Little fact - All the emissions reductions achieved by Kyoto were wiped out by just Chinese emissions increases FIVE TIMES OVER. Been to Hong Kong lately? See if you can see more than 5 feel in front of your face? Their emissions are a joke. You want to hinder Australians to counter this do you? Yeah - good idea.

So, you were bullshitting, when you were bragging about having over $5K free every month - and/or that you are now down around $12K nett every month!?




PS How strange, that you wife likes being likened to a canine!? (Only joking!?)

Tacks don't work very well with carbon.

A good epoxy-based adhesive is far superior.

[smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif]

Seems the idea of taxes can work..

off topic BUT making the point...that people will act.

Tax hike forcing smokers to kick habit
Posted September 23, 2010 11:05:00

Two new Galaxy polls reveal more people have been trying to quit smoking since the Government increased tobacco taxes in April.

The research found that in the two months after the 25 per cent tax hike, nearly 40 per cent of all smokers tried to quit.

That is 10 per cent more people than the three months before the increase

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:32pm:

Seems the idea of taxes can work.. off topic BUT making the point...that people will act. Tax hike forcing smokers to kick habit Posted September 23, 2010 11:05:00 Two new Galaxy polls reveal more people have been trying to quit smoking since the Government increased tobacco taxes in April. The research found that in the two months after the 25 per cent tax hike, nearly 40 per cent of all smokers tried to quit. That is 10 per cent more people than the three months before the increase

So if they put a 25% tax on food, lighting, heating and cooling....then 40% of people will quit using food,lighting, heating and cooling??

Not sure that's good idea.....Although it would solve the population problems wouldn't it???

Given that the oceans absorb Co2 during cool periods and release Co2 during warm periods.......then 'reducing Co2 to combat global warming' is sort of like turning the heater on to cool the house in summer....

It appears to be the exact opposite of what we should be doing...

mellie wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:16am:

It's experimental, deceptive and dicey,

No it isn't. It has been done plenty of times before. It works. It is mainstream economics. If you want to reduce GHG emissions, it is the safest bet.

No one I've heard advocating carbon taxes or any sort of carbon reduction scheme has convinced me it will solve anything. It seems to me, from what I gather on the causes of global warming (and I may be wrong because I'm not a climatologist), that even if we reduced our carbon emissions to zero it probably wont address global warming if global warming is even something we need to worry about. Because what I'm hearing scientists say now is that carbon dioxide is not the thing we need to worry about so much as methane. It seems to me that a more effective solution than carbon reduction is for McDonald's to start using kangaroo meet instead of beef and convert all our cattle farms to kangaroo farms. Because kangaroos don't fart, apparently. So why are we set on carbon reduction when all indications are that any carbon reduction scheme will be too little, too late?

Great post Bob, but dont expect the Unaustralian Labor Party to care, they have the economic vandles in the Greens to lie in bed with now.

Carbon tax will hurt ordinary australians, and the GALP are anti australia.

Quote:

Because what I'm hearing scientists say now is that carbon dioxide is not the thing we need to worry about so much as methane.

They have been saying that since the beginning, which is why so many refer to GHG's rather than just CO2.

Quote:

It seems to me that a more effective solution than carbon reduction is for McDonald's to start using kangaroo meet instead of beef and convert all our cattle farms to kangaroo farms.

If you include a tax on cows that is representative of their contribution to GHG emissions, then this sort of thing will happen when it becomes a cost effective solution. There is no need for direct government intervention, if that is what you are suggesting.


Quote:

Because kangaroos don't fart, apparently.

It is belching. Methane is produced in the rumen. All animals produce some of it, but ruminants far more.


Quote:

So why are we set on carbon reduction when all indications are that any carbon reduction scheme will be too little, too late?

That is not a rational argument. Even if we were 'too late', that is not a good reason to make the situation worse.


Quote:

Carbon tax will hurt ordinary australians

Nowhere near as much as Abbott's alternative appraoch, or an ETS.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

Nowhere near as much as Abbott's alternative appraoch, or an ETS.

So your saying planting more trees is going to hurt us more? how so?

It would be more expensive.

"So your saying planting more trees is going to hurt us more?"

How many trees, and where?

BobH wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 12:29am:

No one I've heard advocating carbon taxes or any sort of carbon reduction scheme has convinced me it will solve anything. It seems to me, from what I gather on the causes of global warming (and I may be wrong because I'm not a climatologist), that even if we reduced our carbon emissions to zero it probably wont address global warming if global warming is even something we need to worry about. Because what I'm hearing scientists say now is that carbon dioxide is not the thing we need to worry about so much as methane. It seems to me that a more effective solution than carbon reduction is for McDonald's to start using kangaroo meet instead of beef and convert all our cattle farms to kangaroo farms. Because kangaroos don't fart, apparently. So why are we set on carbon reduction when all indications are that any carbon reduction scheme will be too little, too late?

Yes. The main problem is methane emanating from politicians who don't have a clue  :D

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 9:41am:

It would be more expensive.

It could be more expensive in more ways than one.  At the moment, forests are generally a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide.  After a certain stage in warming however, the forests start to become net emitters of carbon.

If we just rely on tree planting, it's going to solve nothing. Right now, the forests are effective. 30 years from now, it could be a whole new ballgame.

We need to be working on renewable energy.

Why did Judas rule out a carbon tax in the election campaign?

Why did she earlier lead the push in the Gang of Four to dump the Government's ETS - the move which destroyed Kevin Rudd's credibility and ultimately sealed his fate?