Well Professor John Daley, from the Grattan Institute, has just concluded a major study investigating how to manage Carbon reduction schemes to achieve the targets proposed by both the Government and the Opposition, and concludes the Opposition Plans are exactly what everyone has already said, ineffectual.
The evidence comes down squarely in support of market based Carbon Pricing as the only mechanism that will work.

I can't wait to hear how Greg Hunt responds to this study, as he obviously has so little actual support from the opposition leadership to actually develop any real and effective response to the Carbon issue.

Here is a link to the pdf from the Grattan Institute for any who wish to see what their study concluded.

http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/076_daley_oped_afr_carbon.pdf

What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!?

Was it in the order of 300 Billion!?

Quote:

.............market based Carbon Pricing ............

hahhahahahha

there is NO market NEED for carbon to be bought

What is the market driver ?

To be fair, that was not the Libs plan, but what he was saying that by trying to achieve the 5% reduction by 2020, using the methods suggested by the Libs, would cost 300 billion, not that they intended to do that, but likewise he also said he could not envisage how the opposition could possibly achieve the 5% target they stipulated, using the methods they are promoting, basically he just said their ideas are unworkable.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Quote: .............market based Carbon Pricing ............ hahhahahahha there is NO market NEED for carbon to be bought What is the market driver ?

yOU'RE NOT VERY INTELLIGENT ARE YA MATEY!!!

ANTI-MARKET FORCES ABBOTT DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MARKETS ARE FOR EITHER!!!!

MARKETS PROVIDE _________ ?!!?  :D :D :D

I DON'T THINK YOU EVEN DID YEAR 11 ECONOMICS DID YA MATEY?!!?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Quote: .............market based Carbon Pricing ............ hahhahahahha there is NO market NEED for carbon to be bought What is the market driver ?

Don't be a flip flopping fanboy for Liberal policy because it is Liberal policy, have a look at what the experts said, they are not paid Labor stooges, they were just doing an independent analysis of the evidence available from what has been tried so far, and came to a conclusion about what is feasible, and what is not.
Try reading it before laughing it off.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:55pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:49pm: Quote: .............market based Carbon Pricing ............ hahhahahahha there is NO market NEED for carbon to be bought What is the market driver ? Don't be a flip flopping fanboy for Liberal policy because it is Liberal policy, have a look at what the experts said, they are not paid Labor stooges, they were just doing an independent analysis of the evidence available from what has been tried so far, and came to a conclusion about what is feasible, and what is not. Try reading it before laughing it off.

There is such a thing as AGW stooge and they are all over the place. Failed environmentalist loonies.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:42pm:

Well Professor John Daley, from the Grattan Institute, has just concluded a major study investigating how to manage Carbon reduction schemes to achieve the targets proposed by both the Government and the Opposition, and concludes the Opposition Plans are exactly what everyone has already said, ineffectual. The evidence comes down squarely in support of market based Carbon Pricing as the only mechanism that will work. I can't wait to hear how Greg Hunt responds to this study, as he obviously has so little actual support from the opposition leadership to actually develop any real and effective response to the Carbon issue. Here is a link to the pdf from the Grattan Institute for any who wish to see what their study concluded. http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/076_daley_oped_afr_carbon.pdf

can we presume  the good Prof knows something we dont know????... like what the LABOR/GREEN Carbon reduction scheme is all about????????

as he seems to be the only one that knows what gillard/brown have up their very long sleeves for us.. perhaps he could let us in on their secrets..


so far all I have heard of we are working on it... its all in the cost and how we divi it up.............lol..

sounds a bit like my budget every pension day... it never does work out quite like I plan it. I am always behind.


as for reduction carbon.... what can we expect the temperature to be in the year 2020?

I do wish these guys would tell us the truth and the WHOLE truth..not their interpretation of the truth

Equitist wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!?

To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein

That's real smart spending when it's not your money

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 6:52am:

Equitist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:46pm: What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!? To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein That's real smart spending when it's not your money

The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument???

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 7:38am:

The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument???

This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto

Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets

"If Kevin Rudd had been open to talking to us 18 months ago, he may have been able to both save his own prime ministership and deliver the beginnings of the climate action we all need that much sooner," Milne concluded.

[highlight]Rudd's mistake in dealing with the Coalition in 2009 on the CPRS and negotiating with the then Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull was not that he eschewed the Greens but that he wanted to use the negotiations to destroy the Coalition at the same time.

Turnbull wanted to do a deal, enough Liberal senators wanted to do a deal and even current arch nemesis of the carbon tax - Abbott - was prepared to back the deal for the sake of supporting his leader.[/highlight]

Rather than doing a deal with the Coalition which would have been less radical than the deal the Greens are now demanding, Rudd poked Turnbull in the chest, as Independent MP Tony Windsor put it, at every opportunity and eventually destroyed Turnbull's leadership and Liberal cooperation.

As a result of that political overreach Gillard now can't deal with the more moderate Coalition and realises the outcome the Greens will demand, in keeping with Milne's warning, may not be saleable.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 7:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 6:52am: Equitist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:46pm: What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!? To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein That's real smart spending when it's not your money The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument???

phil what scheme has been PROVEN TO WORK.


this is what the big acam is all about.... there isnt a scheme and no one knows what will work if anything...you have been had..


whay do you think the talk now is all about TAX and how to divi it up...


exactly so we dont talk about WHY>>>>YYYYYYYYY.. what good will it dooooooooooooooooooooo.


you talk about the opposition... tell us what the GOVT knows and WHAT their scheme will change if anything???.. and what proof they have.. she is the one that said their would be NO CARBON TAX>. then did the dirty on us.. so she must be the one to provide the evidence.


you tell us why is Daley right..............or do you like a leeming just take his word for it?

As a result of that political overreach Gillard now can't deal with the more moderate Coalition and realises the outcome the Greens will demand, in keeping with Milne's warning, may not be saleable.

nichy thats exactly it...its all about money...the magic word in this magic pudding is COMPENSATION..


we dont ask anymore what can we expect to happen to the climate when will it start to happen.. and what will happen to temperatures????


give us the details..

these scientist know so much about what will happen if we DONT act.... let them tell us what will happen if we DO.

I have been led to believe this is all about the planet.. yet all we hear is MONEY jinggling...

cant remember the last time we planted a pot of gold and it came up abundantly

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 6:52am:

Equitist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:46pm: What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!? To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein That's real smart spending when it's not your money

"Give" China and India free rein? I guess the alternative is to "force" them to do something?

nichy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 8:15am:

"If Kevin Rudd had been open to talking to us 18 months ago, he may have been able to both save his own prime ministership and deliver the beginnings of the climate action we all need that much sooner," Milne concluded. [highlight]Rudd's mistake in dealing with the Coalition in 2009 on the CPRS and negotiating with the then Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull was not that he eschewed the Greens but that he wanted to use the negotiations to destroy the Coalition at the same time. Turnbull wanted to do a deal, enough Liberal senators wanted to do a deal and even current arch nemesis of the carbon tax - Abbott - was prepared to back the deal for the sake of supporting his leader.[/highlight] Rather than doing a deal with the Coalition which would have been less radical than the deal the Greens are now demanding, Rudd poked Turnbull in the chest, as Independent MP Tony Windsor put it, at every opportunity and eventually destroyed Turnbull's leadership and Liberal cooperation. As a result of that political overreach Gillard now can't deal with the more moderate Coalition and realises the outcome the Greens will demand, in keeping with Milne's warning, may not be saleable.

Methinks that some people are exercising some extraordinary mental gymnastics in trying to blame Rudd for Turnbull's demise...

Seriously, are we to retrospectively-pretend that the Coalition wasn't divided right down the middle over Turnbull and Abbott's leadership - and/or that this fact is irrelevant in the context of Rudd's political omnipotency!?

Are we to believe that Nick Minchin played second fiddle to Kevin Rudd in Malcolm Turnbull's demise!?

Yer, right!?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:38am: The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument??? This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets

Your comment does not change the fact Abbott's policy is based on his belief in Climate Change.....CRAP!!!

;)

Please delete wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 8:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 6:52am: Equitist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:46pm: What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!? To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein That's real smart spending when it's not your money "Give" China and India free rein? I guess the alternative is to "force" them to do something?

Australia shouldn't force anything. We should stay in our tiny little ineffectual box and focus on following the superpowers.
What are they doing/trying to do about climate change/consumption?

I use the same method at work: 'he gets paid the same as me and does half the work, fluck it, i'm going to work stoned today'.
-needless to say i'm unemployed  :)

Eye for an eye, yeeeahh... i could go on but i won't. I'm not better than that  :D

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 6:28am:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:42pm: Well Professor John Daley, from the Grattan Institute, has just concluded a major study investigating how to manage Carbon reduction schemes to achieve the targets proposed by both the Government and the Opposition, and concludes the Opposition Plans are exactly what everyone has already said, ineffectual. The evidence comes down squarely in support of market based Carbon Pricing as the only mechanism that will work. I can't wait to hear how Greg Hunt responds to this study, as he obviously has so little actual support from the opposition leadership to actually develop any real and effective response to the Carbon issue. Here is a link to the pdf from the Grattan Institute for any who wish to see what their study concluded. http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/076_daley_oped_afr_carbon.pdf can we presume  the good Prof knows something we dont know????... like what the LABOR/GREEN Carbon reduction scheme is all about???????? as he seems to be the only one that knows what gillard/brown have up their very long sleeves for us.. perhaps he could let us in on their secrets.. so far all I have heard of we are working on it... its all in the cost and how we divi it up.............lol.. sounds a bit like my budget every pension day... it never does work out quite like I plan it. I am always behind. as for reduction carbon.... what can we expect the temperature to be in the year 2020? I do wish these guys would tell us the truth and the WHOLE truth..not their interpretation of the truth

What secrets does he need to know about government policy that would somehow influence his findings that market based climate pricing is the only mech that will work?

Just to confirm, we are talking about lowering emissions yes?

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:44am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:38am: The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument??? This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets Your comment does not change the fact Abbott's policy is based on his belief in Climate Change.....CRAP!!! ;)

So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D

And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 4:48pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:44am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:38am: The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument??? This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets Your comment does not change the fact Abbott's policy is based on his belief in Climate Change.....CRAP!!! ;) So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

Abbott is playing a game with regards to showing the people of Australia what his actual beliefs are regarding Climate Change.

In effect he is trying to be all things to all people, and his long time stance as a Climate Change denier, is well known, and on the public record, with his most famous statement saying that he thinks it is, "absolute crap!".

Now Abbott is above all else, a political animal, and he knows that he won the leadership of the Liberal Party with the support of like minded deniers of Climate Change within his party, and he also is well aware that there is a significant proportion of media personalities who campaign vigorously to promote denial of the known science, and that they, and their listeners, are very strongly allied to Tony Abbotts cause.

On the other hand, there is the other segment of the community who do accept the known science, and believe that we are obligated to act to reduce our Carbon Emissions, and at the time of the 2007 election, that figure was around 80% of the voting public, and Abbott wants to create the perception that he would act on Climate Change if in government, so as to try and secure their vote, so he makes weakly delivered responses, like, "the coalition's position is that climate change is real. Humanity is making a contribution".
These halfhearted, and totally disingenuous comments are made in a cynical attempt to try and claim that they would treat the matter of Global Warming seriously, for the section of the community who recognise the seriousness of the issue, and who demand that whichever party is in power, needs to take action that is effective in lowering our Carbon Emissions, while at the same time being so vaguely delivered as to allow the deniers of climate change to believe he is still one of them, and is merely making a token gesture to get the politically correct crowd off his back, but he will actually do as little as he possibly can, and continue to promote misunderstanding and confusion about the science, and maintain a policy of inaction which allows everyone to carry on increasing their carbon consumption at accelerating levels.

This was evidenced by the fact that just one day before making the statement that "the coalition's position",(note he did not attach any Personal Belief to the statement) is that climate change is real", he made this staement, which was an expression of his Personal Beliefs, "The science is not settled", and also went on to say that Carbon Dioxide is not the "environmental villain" that people make it out to be.

So just one day apart we have the leader of the opposition making statements that should be considered as contradictory, and while his words convey a confused position, the message actually comes through loud and clear, he is a denier of climate change, but for the sake of political expediency, he has to pretend he is not, but don't worry, he will make sure as little as is humanly possible, will be done to combat climate change, while he is in charge.

That is why the opposition policies amount to little more than creating schemes that will allow for delivering financial handouts to portions of the community to be chosen by the Libs, which provides a great opportunity for a bit of pork barreling in the guise of climate action, but major polluters will not be penalised, and will most likely just be in line for a share of the grants money to setup ineffectual schemes for Carbon sequestration that will deliver very little, if anything, in the way of reduced Carbon Emissions.

A vote for Abbott, is a vote for more of what we saw under a decade of John Howard, promotion of the pseudo-science of denialism, the continual questioning and ultimately, rejection of, the commonly accepted science, and a total lack of any effective action that would see the reduction of carbon Emissions they seem to falsely promise.

Playing both sides against the middle is a dangerous game, and as his conflicting interests become more apparent, he will eventually be forced to clarify his position, and that of his party, once and for all.

Mozza - is it so hard to believe that a great many of us, myself included, are very concerned about the rising cost of living and running a family budget without another tax on us?

Is it so difficult for some of those people who live comfortable lives on insulated salaries to realize the hardship this new tax could place on people??

It's about cost and people trying to live better and bringing in tax on Australian businesses, whilst doing nothing about worse carbon products coming in from overseas - is both idiotic and dangerous to us, the everyday people.

How is that so hard for some to comprehend?

Where has your deeply held concern been over the last ten years while energy costs have been rising at a factor of three and four times the annual consumer price index?
What do you think of comments from within the industry that they believe a price on Carbon is the inevitable way that the world HAS to go, and the sooner it is done the better, for the confusion and delays are simply driving energy pricing higher and higher?

mozzaok wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

Abbott is playing a game with regards to showing the people of Australia what his actual beliefs are regarding Climate Change. In effect he is trying to be all things to all people, and his long time stance as a Climate Change denier, is well known, and on the public record, with his most famous statement saying that he thinks it is, "absolute crap!".

The highlighted comment makes any further reading of your comment irrelevant

It is easier for you and other lefties demonise people who questions the validity of dodgy research with names such as "climate change denier"

Why do you do this?

Have we become a Communist country?

If your science is so solid then it would be quiet easy for you and other lefties to provide answers to simple questions such as

(1) Of all things that emits carbon on Earth - how much do humans contribute to the system (in PERCENTAGE terms)

(2) If CO2 represents between 0.1% and 0.001% then how does taxing Australians impact climate change?

(3) If you don't know the answers then all you are doing is regurgitating rhetoric

.

Well Maqqa, if you really want to discuss the actual science involved, there are ample opportunities for that on the Environment Board, and you can even find the answers to the questions you just posed, if you really care.

However, what we are discussing here, is the political ramifications of Tony Abbotts posturing on the issue.
While your questions regarding the low percentages of CO2 in proportion to all the other gasses in the atmosphere, supports your ideas that this fact renders them as insignificant, is a widely held, and popular view amongst denialists, you can discuss that more fully on the environment board, and many will be happy to debate the validity of your ideas on that matter, there.

HERE, we were discussing Abbott's stance, so may I take this opportunity to ask you, if YOU believe Abbott thinks Global Warming is real???, or if you think he actually shares your opinion on the matter?

Please feel free to offer your honest opinion, I am truly interested to hear what you think.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 4:48pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:44am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:38am: The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument??? This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets Your comment does not change the fact Abbott's policy is based on his belief in Climate Change.....CRAP!!! ;) So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D

You are wrong as usual......I have never claimed Abbott was a believer in climate change.....However I have called him a denier and still hold that belief!!!

And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

I have no idea what this means???

::)

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 4:48pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:44am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 7:38am: The Coalition are committed to the same target.....A 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.....What people need to ask is what scheme has been proven to work and is the most effective......All the opposition has to do is find some evidence to support there absurd claims and they have a policy.....At the moment the Coalition have no plan accept to do very little about climate change and deny anything that does not support there policy.....Can anyone from the Coalition explain why Professor John Daley is wrong or do the Coalition just want to stick there head in the sand and deny everything that does not support there pathetic argument??? This is DIRECTLY due to the fact Rudd ratified Kyoto Otherwise there would be no need to commit to these targets Your comment does not change the fact Abbott's policy is based on his belief in Climate Change.....CRAP!!! ;) So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

You cannot get over the fact that Abbott is anti-market forces!!!  :D :D

 8-)

This is first year economics. There is a strong consensus that carbon pricing is the way to go. Labor has the sensible economic policy on this one, while the coalition has the backdoor socialism response. The coalition has even made the Greens look like economic rationalists in comparison.

The coalition will get all the political mileage out of this that they can. Right up to the point where someone asks them "what would you have us do instead". Then they will fall in a heap.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 9:11am:

This is first year economics. There is a strong consensus that carbon pricing is the way to go. Labor has the sensible economic policy on this one, while the coalition has the backdoor socialism response. The coalition has even made the Greens look like economic rationalists in comparison.

You guys seem to want to overlook as to who caused this need for a tax

It was caused by Rudd who ratified Kyoto. His justification for it are
(1) Australia emits 1.5%
(2) If Australians paid billions to cut 5% of this 1.5% will make the planet cooler

If he didn't do it then there would be no need for the tax

Where are the acknowledgment and outrage from the left about this?

Show this acknowledgment and outrage THEN you might have some credibility in trying to discuss about the differences in policies from the LIBs

You guys act as if the LIBs are the reason why we need this policy

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 6:09pm:

And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission

You cannot get over the fact that Abbott is anti-market forces!!!  :D :D

 8-)[/quote]

Even the Greens don't take you serious when you talk economics death

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission You are wrong as usual......I have never claimed Abbott was a believer in climate change.....However I have called him a denier and still hold that belief!!! And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission I have no idea what this means??? ::)

Point 1
Rudd also said Gillard did not believe in the tax yet here we are with the tax


Point 2
Demonising people because they question the validity of the claim is pretty low even for you


Point 3
Australia contributes 1.5% to toal human carbon emissions. Gillard's carbon tax is meant to cut 5% of this 1.5% ie making no difference to total world emissions

Maqqa the plan is to link our emissions cuts to the cuts made by other countries. At the moment we are playing catchup. We are not leading. We are not going it alone. Under Howard we were a barrier to a global agreement. That has a far more significant impact. You keep pretending our government does not have a policy for responding to global emissions. You keep pretending that our decisions are being made in a global political vacuum. This is simply not true. Criticise the policy if you want, but pretending it does not exist is getting a bit tiresome.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 2:27pm: So one moment you say he doesn't believe now you say he does believe  :D And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission You are wrong as usual......I have never claimed Abbott was a believer in climate change.....However I have called him a denier and still hold that belief!!! And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission I have no idea what this means??? ::) Point 1 Rudd also said Gillard did not believe in the tax yet here we are with the tax Point 2 Demonising people because they question the validity of the claim is pretty low even for you Point 3 Australia contributes 1.5% to toal human carbon emissions. Gillard's carbon tax is meant to cut 5% of this 1.5% ie making no difference to total world emissions

Points 1 - 2 - 3 have nothing to do with the debate!!!

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 9:11am:

This is first year economics. There is a strong consensus that carbon pricing is the way to go. Labor has the sensible economic policy on this one, while the coalition has the backdoor socialism response. The coalition has even made the Greens look like economic rationalists in comparison. The coalition will get all the political mileage out of this that they can. Right up to the point where someone asks them "what would you have us do instead". Then they will fall in a heap.

Abbott is doing everything in his power to push us to an election, yet he is no closer to answering this fundamental question. In fact I'm finding it impossible to discern his position on anthropogenic global warming, a problem other posters don't seem to have, placing him squarely in the denier camp.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338007125

Labor's market based policy is on the table and legislated, why can't Abbott articulate the specifics of his direct action policy? It's worth reading the rest of this thread as a number of posters have clearly outlined some significant problems with the Liberals direct action plan. With so much at stake and the issues incredibly complex, we shouldn't accept Abbott's strategy of minimizing his exposure on this issue. The media has an important job to do and they are clearly failing us at the moment.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Quote: .............market based Carbon Pricing ............ hahhahahahha there is NO market NEED for carbon to be bought What is the market driver ?

Sprint, lol!!

Lol!!!!!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 6:09pm: And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission You cannot get over the fact that Abbott is anti-market forces!!!  :D :D  8-)

Even the Greens don't take you serious when you talk economics death[/quote]
You can't get over the fact he is anti-market forces!

  :D :D :D :D

Lol, deflect all you want: YOU HAVE NO CLOTHES ON!!!  ;D ;D

Please delete wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 8:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 6:52am: Equitist wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:46pm: What was the estimated cost of the Libs' non-plan!? Was it in the order of 300 Billion!? To drop 5% of 1.5% while we give China and India free rein That's real smart spending when it's not your money "Give" China and India free rein? I guess the alternative is to "force" them to do something?

It would be no more difficult than forcing the Liberals to do something.

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 6:28am:

can we presume  the good Prof knows something we dont know????

I think we can safely assume the good professor knows a great deal of things that you don't know, especially when it comes to economics ;D

The Liberal position hasn't changed since Howard. They don't have the integrity to tell the truth and say that climate change in their opinion is BS and they intend to do nothing so they just keep saying they will do the opposite to Labor and put forward ideas which are only meant to be sufficient to muddy the waters.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:30am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 6:09pm: And your comment and/or Labor's Carbon Tax will make even 1% on carbon emission You cannot get over the fact that Abbott is anti-market forces!!!  :D :D  8-) Even the Greens don't take you serious when you talk economics death

You can't get over the fact he is anti-market forces!

  :D :D :D :D

Lol, deflect all you want: YOU HAVE NO CLOTHES ON!!!  ;D ;D[/quote]
IT WOULD SEEM MAQQA AGREES HE/SHE/IT HAS NO CLOTHES ON!!

Dear Voters,

You may find this Julia political satire, "Goodbye Julia" most useful:

Goodbye Julia - on utube