So acting like spoilt children, Libs and Nats don't want to partake in negotiating a price on carbon.

How is this productive for the voters who supported them.

From within, Libs and Nats would have more influence in the outcome.



Gillard to unveil climate change committee


Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to reveal who will sit on a new cross-party climate change committee, as the Government puts a renewed focus on implementing a carbon price.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/27/3022540.htm

They never wanted a price on carbon, and the Libs and Nats made that an election promise.  Why should they stab their voters in the back the same as Gillard.

The Libs and Nats went to the election saying they wouldnt support it.  You should congratulate them for sticking to their convictions.

Verge wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

They never wanted a price on carbon, and the Libs and Nats made that an election promise.  Why should they stab their voters in the back the same as Gillard. The Libs and Nats went to the election saying they wouldnt support it.  You should congratulate them for sticking to their convictions.

Liberal and National voters were aware they were voting for a coalition who would not keep it's word.

Abbott made the clear when he implied his word is worth squat.


How can those that oppose, or require a cheaper price on carbon, influence the outcome ... or do the Liberal and National Parties want a high carbon price on the quiet.

Julia Gillard went to the election stating quite categorically that THERE WOULD NOT BE A CARBON PRICE  .

At least the Coalition is keeping it's word.

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



Just who is looking, not just silly,  but downright dishonest Joolya ?

nichy wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

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 Just who is looking, not just silly,  but downright dishonest Joolya ?

Yes we know this ... as well as we know Labor did not win a majority outright so have no mandate.

Meanwhile Liberal and National Parties are promoting the steepest price on carbon by not taking part in the negotiations.

Liberals and Nationals support a deep carbon tax by not negotiating a weaker model.

The longer we delay a carbon tax the more expensive it is going to be, it does us no good for this to be used as a political football.

Perhaps someone can explain the benefits of a carbon tax.

As I saw the last ETS, it was to put a tax on carbon emissions,  Pay subsidies to the polluters , who would pass the tax costs on to consumers, and not really do anything for the environment.


I saw a fellow (not a polititician) a couple of weeks ago on TV who said his aim was to get a billion trees planted and that would be far more effective than any carbon cap.  

I'm very confused about it all.  

Under the CPRS scheme of the Rudd Goverment, The Greens were out for the modeling of a 40% target ETS. Mr Rudd realised a 25% target would cost the Australian economy the same a a 5%. Some sectors think a forty percent target would of been cheaper than a 5-25% target.

Labor opposed the costing of a 40% reduction scheme because if it turned out to be cheaper on the economy, Labor's climate change policies would look stupid.


Now in this new environment, Liberals and Nationals hold the balance of power between Labor and the Greens/Independents.

Greens will be pushing for the strongest approach and Labor has little choice while Liberals and Nationals support the Greens position by fence sittings.

Perhaps it is time for Liberal and National supporters to realise, they have been conned by Abbott.


Abbott is Pro Greens and Pro a Price On Carbon.

Woody, get off the crack, seriously.

BUT -  what are the benefits TO THE ENVIRONMENT of a carbon tax ????

Verge wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 11:48am:

Woody, get off the crack, seriously.

My sexual preferences have nothing to do with this debate Verge :-)

nichy wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 11:51am:

BUT -  what are the benefits TO THE ENVIRONMENT of a carbon tax ????

To change behavior through the profit motive of a capitalist market.


Investment decisions will shift from high carbon polluting paths to lesser polluting paths in the motive of greater profits.

Through this, Australians, per capita, will have smaller carbon footprints.

This will benefit segments of the economies that are facing collapse if business as usual continues.

Lower carbon pollution decreases the subsidization incurred by the environment,

____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 12:03pm:

nichy wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 11:51am: BUT -  what are the benefits TO THE ENVIRONMENT of a carbon tax ???? To change behavior through the profit motive of a capitalist market. Investment decisions will shift from high carbon polluting paths to lesser polluting paths in the motive of greater profits. Through this, Australians, per capita, will have smaller carbon footprints. This will benefit segments of the economies that are facing collapse if business as usual continues. Lower carbon pollution decreases the subsidization incurred by the environment,

No it doesnt, the big boys just charge more and the rest of us get reamed in the process.

Verge wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 12:06pm:

____ wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 12:03pm: nichy wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 11:51am: BUT -  what are the benefits TO THE ENVIRONMENT of a carbon tax ???? To change behavior through the profit motive of a capitalist market. Investment decisions will shift from high carbon polluting paths to lesser polluting paths in the motive of greater profits. Through this, Australians, per capita, will have smaller carbon footprints. This will benefit segments of the economies that are facing collapse if business as usual continues. Lower carbon pollution decreases the subsidization incurred by the environment, No it doesnt, the big boys just charge more and the rest of us get reamed in the process.

Are you saying market tools do not work. Is this why some segments of the business community are opposing a price on carbon?

or is it that these market tool work well and they are fearful of having to pay the true price for their activity.

The Environment was a giant rip off scheme that never worked in the first place.

Uh... you do know this thread is more than thirteen
years old?     Things have changed a bit since then.

—Just sayin'   8-)

Yes. And its very interesting in 'how' it has changed since then.