Hi Everyone,

This is my first post, i dont know if you guys have talked about this before? if so sorry to bring back old discussions.

Well what do you guys think is the carbon tax a big scam?

Personally i think it is, because there are much better ways to fix the problem than joining The European ETS scheme.

Ajax wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Personally i think it is, because there are much better ways to fix the problem than joining The European ETS scheme.

Let hear 'em.

Ajax wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Hi Everyone, This is my first post, i dont know if you guys have talked about this before? if so sorry to bring back old discussions. Well what do you guys think is the carbon tax a big scam? Personally i think it is, because there are much better ways to fix the problem than joining The European ETS scheme.

1. Is there a problem?

2. If there is, can humans do anything about it?

Well for starters the goverment could force power stations to convert from coal to gas fired which will greatly reduce the amount of CO2 and other green house gases being emitted.

This way the pollutters will end up paying instead of the public.

The way its geared now and with the admission of the PM and others, the cost will flow on to the end user and the polluters can carry on as before as long as they buy carbon credits that are being farmed from overseas companies.

There is no incentive for the big polluters to reduce emmissions and the government will get its revenue.

The carbon tax will increase not only the cost of energy but every daily essential cause everything uses energy somewhere between raw materials and sales.

This might interest you in making your mind up about if the carbon tax is a scam, gullability, stupidity or other.

Well isn't this timely for the climate church followers who smuggly say only NASA ect are reputable and throw away any and all other peer reviewed science.

German news translated. Circulation of 16million readers. Devoting half of page 2.

“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/

Ajax wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

Well for starters the goverment could force power stations to convert from coal to gas fired which will greatly reduce the amount of CO2 and other green house gases being emitted. This way the pollutters will end up paying instead of the public.

So, who is going to pay for this change to gas?

Electricity companies? They have to get the money from somewhere, and the only revenue they have is from consumers.  So they will need to double the electricity rate to you and me, maybe more.

Government? Thats our money they spend, not theirs.

Quote:

The way its geared now and with the admission of the PM and others, the cost will flow on to the end user and the polluters can carry on as before as long as they buy carbon credits that are being farmed from overseas companies.

Someone has to pay for this conversion away from coal.  Money dont grow on tree's. It will always flow onto the end user.... there is no one else.

So what other ideas have you got ?

An ETS makes polluters pay where as the Coalitions Direct Action policy will be paid for from budget revenue......It is widely accepted by economists that pricing carbon is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.....

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/factsheets/article/-/9819732/carbon-tax-vs-ets-vs-direct-action/

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/how-does-the-ets-work

http://www.business21c.com.au/2009/12/emissions-trading-how-does-it-work

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/07/ets-emissions-trading

Direct Action exposed......

On Monday night on the ABC's PM program, Stephen Long finally examined some of Tony Abbott's claims. In a stunning piece of forensic investigation, Long single-handedly dismantled the distortions, misrepresentations and bald-faced lies that Tony Abbott continues to advance.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 5:20pm: Personally i think it is, because there are much better ways to fix the problem than joining The European ETS scheme. Let hear 'em.

A few OZ nuke power stations will reduce OZ emmissions if not concentrations....... :o

Yes we'd go a long way in reaching that target of 5% of our 1% of global emissions.....

Wait a minute...OZ produces 1% of Global emissions and we want to reduce our 1% to 0.95% by retarding our industries and competitive advantage, exporting our jobs overseas (already happening) redistributing wealth away from efficient industries to inefficient ones..............what the hell are we doing? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Swagman wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 5:20pm: Personally i think it is, because there are much better ways to fix the problem than joining The European ETS scheme. Let hear 'em. A few OZ nuke power stations will reduce OZ emmissions if not concentrations....... o

Conversion to nukes cost money, same as conversion to gas.  Someone's got to foot the bill.

Anyway, all this direct action mumbo jumbo is a classic case of asking the government to pick winners. Gas or Nukes, etc.   Just price coal to the point at which gas, nukes and renewables are competitive, and let the market decide. The market always find the efficient solution to a problem.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Direct Action exposed...... On Monday night on the ABC's PM program, Stephen Long finally examined some of Tony Abbott's claims. In a stunning piece of forensic investigation, Long single-handedly dismantled the distortions, misrepresentations and bald-faced lies that Tony Abbott continues to advance. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

This quote sums up Direct Action...

They conclude that Direct Action will cost taxpayers $11 billion a year, require a thicket of new regulations and hundreds of new bureaucrats to enforce them.

Direct Action is likely to achieve any emissions reductions at an exorbitant cost. One million solar roofs, for instance, will cost $133 for every tonne of carbon it abates.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 5:36pm: Well for starters the goverment could force power stations to convert from coal to gas fired which will greatly reduce the amount of CO2 and other green house gases being emitted. This way the pollutters will end up paying instead of the public. So, who is going to pay for this change to gas? Electricity companies? They have to get the money from somewhere, and the only revenue they have is from consumers.  So they will need to double the electricity rate to you and me, maybe more. Government? Thats our money they spend, not theirs. Quote: The way its geared now and with the admission of the PM and others, the cost will flow on to the end user and the polluters can carry on as before as long as they buy carbon credits that are being farmed from overseas companies. Someone has to pay for this conversion away from coal.  Money dont grow on tree's. It will always flow onto the end user.... there is no one else. So what other ideas have you got ?

Well what do you do if you want a new car?

You dig into your savings or get some credit right!

Are you saying that these companies are exempt from digging into their profits!

They certainely dig into them to give themselves big bonuses at the top end dont they.

Yes they should encure the whole cost, it wont happen overnight, it will be a gradual thing.

This was the case when the government legislated to reduce sulphur in petrol from 10% to 6% not but a few years ago.

If these greedy companies dont like it they can nik of and our government can take over, its not that they have improved so much more since we went private.

And dont forget they make billions in profit.

And where the hell is the competition we were promised!

Companies pay not the consumer.

Ajax wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 8:08pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 5:36pm: Well for starters the goverment could force power stations to convert from coal to gas fired which will greatly reduce the amount of CO2 and other green house gases being emitted. This way the pollutters will end up paying instead of the public. So, who is going to pay for this change to gas? Electricity companies? They have to get the money from somewhere, and the only revenue they have is from consumers.  So they will need to double the electricity rate to you and me, maybe more. Government? Thats our money they spend, not theirs. Quote: The way its geared now and with the admission of the PM and others, the cost will flow on to the end user and the polluters can carry on as before as long as they buy carbon credits that are being farmed from overseas companies. Someone has to pay for this conversion away from coal.  Money dont grow on tree's. It will always flow onto the end user.... there is no one else. So what other ideas have you got ? Well what do you do if you want a new car? You dig into your savings or get some credit right! Are you saying that these companies are exempt from digging into their profits! They certainely dig into them to give themselves big bonuses at the top end dont they. Yes they should encure the whole cost, it wont happen overnight, it will be a gradual thing. This was the case when the government legislated to reduce sulphur in petrol from 10% to 6% not but a few years ago. If these greedy companies dont like it they can nik of and our government can take over, its not that they have improved so much more since we went private. And dont forget they make billions in profit. And where the hell is the competition we were promised! Companies pay not the consumer.

The company profits from electricity generators would barely pay for the foundations of a new generation plant.

The shareholders of private generators arent about to voluntarily bottom out their share price and dividends to build new plants.  They will force the company to charge more.

The government who controls the public generators will not receive such healthy dividents if all profit (and new loans) are required to build new plants. The government loses money meaning either less services for you, or more taxes for you to pay to make up the difference.

Money dont grow on tree's.

The only different between your government directed change, and a carbon tax, is a carbon tax lets the market decide which is the most efficient solution, yours is the government trying to pick winners which is fraught with danger and corruption.

Welcome Ajax to the 'bullring'. There has and is much comment on the Lord Monckton blog in regard to Climate Change and Carbon etc.

Nevertheless your comments and presence are more than welcome. Healthy debate from both sides is a good thing. Only by healthy debate can we examine issues from all corners.

As I have said extensively on the Monckton blog, I believe the Carbon Tax to be a gigantic con job.

A thirty second grab on my views, 'The big polluters with buy Carbon Credits so that Indonesian banana farmers can offset their pollution here.'  When the Carbon Credits Trading gets going in earnest, our big polluters will offset everything they churn out.

The stockbroker's of the world view as their 'wet dream' they trade  in Fresh Air and all the little worker ants of the earth will keep their pockets full by this crazy tax. (Not crazy as far as the Labor Pzarty are concened they will reap the wild wind with it.)

Point in question, Al Gore, yes that one, is now in business of Carbon Credits with a partner David Blood, their firm Blood and Gore (not a joke).

Al Gore is reaping the bounty of his climate change crap and making millions and millions.

Come in spinner, there is one born every minute as Barnum of Barnum and Bailey's Circus once said.

I think Ajax is the rare breed that understands climate change is man made, but is looking to debate the best strategy to fight it.
A very rare, and very worthwhile thing to do.

Which means all you deniers who polute the world with your rubbish can GTFO of this thread.
;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

I think Ajax is the rare breed that understands climate change is man made, but is looking to debate the best strategy to fight it. A very rare, and very worthwhile thing to do. Which means all you deniers who polute the world with your rubbish can GTFO of this thread. ;D

How about you gullible scare mongers GTFO of this thread.

Why is it that the biggest factor in CO2 consumption is the elephant in the room no government will talk about.

Population growth.

The only way a carbon tax makes sense is if we get to put a big glass dome over Australia and keep our atmosphere seperate.
This is because global emmissions of CO2 will continue to increase.
http://cnx.org/content/m41580/latest/graphics3.jpg
Does anyone see the problem?
This makes a carbon tax in Australia in its application to a global CO2 problem futile...of course the government rakes in revenue. The reason the Non-OECD countries emmissions are increasing is because, in part, we, as in Australia, cannot sell them coal quick enough and are increasing our coal production to meet this need... These countries also need this coal to drive the industries that the Australian government has driven offshore...although we may have no car industry so it will be in an imported one.

Absolutely tongueman, but they wont do anything until we do something.

And we should be the first to move because we've been doing it (co2 release) for far longer, and far more per person.

If they follow, we'll be ok.   If they dont, we're all f-ked, worrying about a few dollars now will be the least of your worries.

Facts are, they will follow. A few extreme climate events will put the wind up them. At some point in time when the climate is so bad, they cant continue to say No. By setting the framework now, we will be well prepared, and the rapid response the world does do will have minimal impact on us.

Hi red baron thanks dude and i wholeheartedly agree with you.

Sorry doctor jolly, anything that relies on the UN, the world bank and wall street to clean up the Earth is doomed to fail, problem is we are going to be sending out billions of dollars to these foriegn organisations.

How could the above have cleaning the Earth up as a top priority? just wont happen my friend.

Doctor Jolly,

I cannot forget the wholesome image of Bob Brown and his latest partner taking a photo opportunity outside his little retreat in Tasmania.

It was winter and in the background the fire stack of Brown's chimney was pouring it out.

Kind of says a lot doesn't it? You are claiming to be a non polluter are you?

Brother - wish I was back my surveillance days with you as the target. Would love to do a 24/7 surveillance on what you get up to with your clean as nappy san life style. Bet I could reveal a thing or two.

Its mostly been my experience from a lifetime of them, that the apple never falls far from the tree. e.g. Bob Brown the arch hypocrite with a wood burning heating system going. And an open fireplace to boot.

Like i said it's all bulls..t!

Why the carbon tax is a scam.

I cant send the address from where i got this from yet, i have to wait for 12 posts.


Quote:

http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm UN IPCC OFFICIAL ADMITS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations international body that assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Its reports have been the entire basis on which various Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) and carbon taxes have been imposed to allegedly stop the planet from heating up. In recent times, IPCC reports on global warming have been exposed as being falsified and in fact hard data has shown that the planet has actually slightly cooled in the past decade, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. So the "Global Warming" term was abandoned in favour of "Climate Change", allowing the IPCC to hedge its bets as to which way global temperatures were going to move. The carbon tax imposed by the Gillard Labor government is based on the IPCC data that is so flaky, however many people have wondered about the real reason that this tax was imposed, even though it exposed Gillard as a monumental liar. Well, the truth about the so-called global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide increase and all the rest of the IPCC data has been exposed as a gigantic scam by none other than a top IPCC official who is right on the inside of this organisation. In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources were to be negotiated. Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, [quote]"We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth, the admission from one of the top IPCC people that instigated it is the absolute proof that it is a monstrous scam.


Quote:

Edenhofer stated, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, Edenhofer is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

As Australia's carbon tax is based on this amazing con, it therefore has absolutely no grounds to be imposed.

Every Australian should now use Edenhofer's admission to complain to every sitting Member of Parliament and state to them that if the IPCC climate change findings are a scam for wealth redistribution, then the carbon tax based on those findings must also be a scam.

There is no way that the government can possibly deny it, when the IPCC's own official admits that it is a con-job.[/quote]

Quote:

WHY THE PUSH FOR A CARBON TAX The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax is that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found. Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that industrialised nations are now essentially bankrupt. The creation of money without tangible assets to back it has finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt. So as the world moves from production to consumption, the emphasis has shifted to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem. Journalist Richard K Moore has written a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called Prognosis 2012: Towards a New World Social Order that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions. This article is available on the Downloads page. The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. Of course if polluters actually do reduce emissions, the tax rate will rise to compensate for the reduced revenue, but if polluters manage to actually reduce their emissions to a marked degree, governments that rely on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading will collapse. So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emissions won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.

Quote:

GILLARD IGNORES THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION In April 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that half the greenhouse gases and pollution in Australia was being emitted by just 50 companies. So if that were the case, the most obvious way to eradicate half the harmful emissions would be to deal with those 50 companies and legislate to force them to switch from coal-fired energy to gas-fired energy and also monitor their emissions and fine them if they did not ensure that they complied. This solution would see a huge and very real reduction in all pollution, not just the theoretical 5% reduction in carbon dioxide that Gillard claims will occur with her $11 billion per year tax. Even if only a 25% reduction in all greenhouse gases was achieved by such a measure, this would be a real achievement, not the bogus reduction of CO2 that Gillard is claiming. Actually forcing the biggest polluters to stop polluting would ensure a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but of course it would not raise revenue for the government and its quasi-communist ideology of wealth redistribution, which is the whole idea of the CO2 tax. The problem with a CO2 tax is that it would not stop polluters from emitting CO2, it would merely impose a cost on them for doing so and this cost would merely be passed onto the end-users of their products after the government had reaped the revenue from this tax. This is why the Gillard Labor government would not countenance any real measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, simply because such measures would actually achieve their goals without ripping off the taxpayers and filling government coffers. In fact, with a CO2 tax, the government would have no incentive in reducing CO2 because that would result in a reduction in revenue. It is the same principle as speed cameras, where a government would lose a fortune if every motorist stopped speeding and the revenue from fines dried up.

Quote:

"The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." So there is Prime Minister Julia Gillard blatantly admitting on the record that the so-called big polluters won't pay a cent of this CO2 tax, but it will be passed straight onto anybody who buys anything whatsoever, because there is not a single item or service that will not be affected by this tax. So every time that Gillard states that the big polluters will pay the tax, she is lying. This serial liar of a Prime Minister has known all along that not one of the alleged polluters will pay anything at all and that's why this tax is such an obvious scam. If the polluters are not penalised for polluting, then they have no incentive to stop doing this. But of course we all know that CO is not a pollutant anyway, so this merely compounds the massive con-job that Gillard and her regime is trying to perpetrate onto the Australian community. Why do the Labor Government and the Greens insist that only big business will pay the carbon tax, when their own Climate Change advisor Ross Garnaut openly states that households will ultimately bear the full cost of the tax and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard admits to this too? Does this not prove that the Labor Government and Greens are constantly lying to the Australian people?

Quote:

"A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

Quote:

"Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut, Labor Government Appointee and Author of the Climate Change Review

Quote:

"The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain." Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong 6 feb 2008

Quote:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Julia Gillard

Quote:

"No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition." Wayne Swan

Australia's CO2 contribution

The Earth’s Co2 content is approx 0.0383% by volume

By weight 383 ppm or 0.0582%

Molar mass = 44.0095 g/mole

Mean molar mass air = 28.97 g/mole

0.0383% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0582% Co2

Total mean mass of the atmosphere = 5.1480 x 10^18 kg (Wikipedia)

5148,000,000,000,000,000 kg

Total weight of Co2 in the atmosphere

0.0582% x 5148,000,000,000,000,000 = 2,996,136,000,000 kg

Manmade Co2 contribution is 3% the rest is natural.

3% of 2,996,136,000,000 = 89,880,000,000 kg Total manmade Co2 .

Australia contribution to AGW is only 1.5%.

1.5% of 89,880,000,000 kg = 1,348,200,000 kg

1,348,200,000/89,880,000,000 = 0.015% of Total AGW

Yet we will be paying $23/tonne while Europe is paying less than $8/tonne.

Hey doctor jolly is that convincing enough for you.

Most of the above quotes came from here,

http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBx_WaIE6o4

It takes a special breed of f-ckwit to believe a youtube vid is the gospel truth.

Koozzoo News?

"Koozzoo.com produces to order TV news and PR segments from as little as $149"

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

It takes a special breed of f-ckwit to believe a youtube vid is the gospel truth.

But you see the thing is its true.

So who's the  F...............

Ajax wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBx_WaIE6o4

I think jolly may be regreting saying

Quote:

I think Ajax is the rare breed that understands climate change is man made, but is looking to debate the best strategy to fight it. A very rare, and very worthwhile thing to do. Which means all you deniers who polute the world with your rubbish can GTFO of this thread.

Welcome and keep your info coming.

Ajax wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 7:57pm: It takes a special breed of f-ckwit to believe a youtube vid is the gospel truth. But you see the thing is its true. So who's the  F...............

You, you wad.

Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment.

The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street.

Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds.

Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost.

They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-?

If anyone still believes that the Australian carbon tax will do anything for global CO2 emission reduction is refusing to think.

Ajax wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-?

That is why direct action is atleast partly better. At the very least, atleast the money is spent in Australia and it will be action directed at a cleaner environment.

Ajax wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-?

So you are not so much against the carbon tax, just against financial markets ?

Financial markets keep the world ticking. We havent even had a recession in this country, our dollar is sky high and interest rates are low.  What on earth do you have to complain about regarding financial markets.
Financial markets, by their very nature, reward the efficient.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-? That is why direct action is atleast partly better. At the very least, atleast the money is spent in Australia and it will be action directed at a cleaner environment.

The problem is they're a bunch of hypocrites...care for the environment do they....
Here's an example...Sydney where the sewerage from about 3 million (Bondi, Malabar and North Head) people gets no treatment other than hitting a screen at high pressure (high-rate primary) before being dumped into the ocean every day. So what are the environmental measures they have taken in sum total...they have extended the pipes further out to sea.
So the place where there is the highest economic capacity to provide tertiary treatment to sewerage on income per hectare or land value per hectare makes the choice not to.
So if they can justify a tax on carbon they can justify cleaning up some of the other crap first.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-? That is why direct action is atleast partly better. At the very least, atleast the money is spent in Australia and it will be action directed at a cleaner environment.

Direct action as in getting the biggest polluters in Australia to become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their plants with the latest technology in

1. Fabric Filter bags
2. Electro static precipitators
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration

OR

5. Gas fired power stations,  we have plenty of the stuff just like coal.

NO i dont like Tony Abbotts direct plan either, its giving money away for nothing.

The above is how we can fix the problem here in our back yard without giving away billions to overseas institutions.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-? So you are not so much against the carbon tax, just against financial markets ? Financial markets keep the world ticking. We havent even had a recession in this country, our dollar is sky high and interest rates are low.  What on earth do you have to complain about regarding financial markets. Financial markets, by their very nature, reward the efficient.

You sir have alot to learn about who controls our financial markets and how the world has been farked over by these cleptocrates.

Now they are trying to take sovereignty away from nations.

Its exactly people like you who enpower them to do so.

Why dont you just hand them the vasaline it might take some of the pain away.

And it wont be too long before the IMF comes knocking on our door either.

Maybe they already have and THE CARBON TAX is AUSTERITY measures in INGOGNITO for Australia!

You know at the last G20 meeting Gillard handed them a $6.8 billion dollar xmas present, thats $6.8 billion that we have to borrow and then pay back with interest to these bankers.

Isn't that treason!

Read here
http://www.smh.com.au/world/gillard-insists-boosting-imf-funds-will-aid-friends-with-benefits-20111104-1n04y.html


And where did she get it well maybe rom here!
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/australia-to-cut-a-6-8-billion-to-meet-budget-surplus-pledge.html

Its treason i tell ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4d6jMmKseI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Dl3y-pR-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YacUlnwsI

Ajax wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:31pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-? That is why direct action is atleast partly better. At the very least, atleast the money is spent in Australia and it will be action directed at a cleaner environment. Direct action as in getting the biggest polluters in Australia to become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their plants with the latest technology in 1. Fabric Filter bags 2. Electro static precipitators 3. Scrubbers 4. Carbon sequestration OR 5. Gas fired power stations,  we have plenty of the stuff just like coal. NO i dont like Tony Abbotts direct plan either, its giving money away for nothing. The above is how we can fix the problem here in our back yard without giving away billions to overseas institutions.

Direct action and being a cleaner polluter is all that is needed.

CO2 is not the issue.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:47pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:31pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 8th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Just let me say that i DO want to clean up our environment. The CARBON TAX will do no such thing and as the video says the banking cartels will manipulat it on wall street. Cleaning the environment will be the last thing on their minds. Derivatives and farming carbon credits for a profit will rule the roost. They have farked over the whole world financialy how can anyone think they care about the environment. :-? That is why direct action is atleast partly better. At the very least, atleast the money is spent in Australia and it will be action directed at a cleaner environment. Direct action as in getting the biggest polluters in Australia to become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their plants with the latest technology in 1. Fabric Filter bags 2. Electro static precipitators 3. Scrubbers 4. Carbon sequestration OR 5. Gas fired power stations,  we have plenty of the stuff just like coal. NO i dont like Tony Abbotts direct plan either, its giving money away for nothing. The above is how we can fix the problem here in our back yard without giving away billions to overseas institutions. Direct action and being a cleaner polluter is all that is needed. CO2 is not the issue.

i agree.

CO2 is in soft drinks and beer.

If it was pollution how can we injest it.

Ajax wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

You know at the last G20 meeting Gillard handed them a $6.8 billion dollar xmas present, thats $6.8 billion that we have to borrow and then pay back with interest to these bankers. Isn't that treason! Read here http://www.smh.com.au/world/gillard-insists-boosting-imf-funds-will-aid-friends-with-benefits-20111104-1n04y.html And where did she get it well maybe rom here! http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/australia-to-cut-a-6-8-billion-to-meet-budget-surplus-pledge.html Its treason i tell ya.

We are loaning the IMF the money, you muppet.

You should be tried for treason.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:56pm: You know at the last G20 meeting Gillard handed them a $6.8 billion dollar xmas present, thats $6.8 billion that we have to borrow and then pay back with interest to these bankers. Isn't that treason! Read here http://www.smh.com.au/world/gillard-insists-boosting-imf-funds-will-aid-friends-with-benefits-20111104-1n04y.html And where did she get it well maybe rom here! http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/australia-to-cut-a-6-8-billion-to-meet-budget-surplus-pledge.html Its treason i tell ya. We are loaning the IMF the money, you muppet. You should be tried for treason. ;D

Is that right!

She also stood out in front on national television and said,


Quote:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Julia Gillard

She has sold us into financial slavery and it is treason.

Who will know whether they have paid it of or not YOU oR ME, she's planning to give them more she recons that $6.8 billion isn't enough of a contribution to help the IMF fund the bail out money for the EU.

And what about the 10% monies that are going to the UN climate change fund from the Australian Carbon Tax?

WTF have the UN got to do with Australian Tax Payers money, why are we giving them anything at all.

She's a traitor and should be sent to jail.

Ajax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 9:26pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:56pm: You know at the last G20 meeting Gillard handed them a $6.8 billion dollar xmas present, thats $6.8 billion that we have to borrow and then pay back with interest to these bankers. Isn't that treason! Read here http://www.smh.com.au/world/gillard-insists-boosting-imf-funds-will-aid-friends-with-benefits-20111104-1n04y.html And where did she get it well maybe rom here! http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/australia-to-cut-a-6-8-billion-to-meet-budget-surplus-pledge.html Its treason i tell ya. We are loaning the IMF the money, you muppet. You should be tried for treason. ;D Is that right! She also stood out in front on national television and said, Quote: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Julia Gillard She has sold us into financial slavery and it is treason. Who will know whether they have paid it of or not YOU oR ME, she's planning to give them more she recons that $6.8 billion isn't enough of a contribution to help the IMF fund the bail out money for the EU. And what about the 10% monies that are going to the UN climate change fund from the Australian Carbon Tax? WTF have the UN got to do with Australian Tax Payers money, why are we giving them anything at all. She's a traitor and should be sent to jail.

Oh, so it seems your real feelings are not anti-carbon tax as a way to mitigate climate change as your opening post suggested, you hate finance and hate gillard. Fair enough, you'll find plenty of oddball friends here.  You really should have come clean up front though.

Back to the $7 billion IMF capper.

We have offered the a $7 billion dollar line of credit, which they can use, only if they need to. As far as I know they havent used it. Se still have our $7b large.
If they do use it, or more likely, part of it, they will pay lovely interest on what they take. And more interest that we get charged for borrowing I might add, which means we make a nice little arbitrage.  And then also repay the money later.

Its Australia getting money for nothing, and looking like a good global citizen at the same time.
How can you possibly be opposed to that ?

Julia Gillard

Is the bankers golden girl, mate they have her in their back pockets, she will be handing over $10 billion to the IMF.

Who owns the IMF, Goldman Sachs etc etc.

Who has recently farked the world up Goldman sachs etc etc .

These are the people she supports.

If this deal was so good why doesn't she tell us the details, there would be nothing to loose right.

Fact is they will get this money from thin air and then we will be paying the ineterest.

How can you believe a person who said


Quote:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Julia Gillard

Only to fool us all and introduce it, people that voted for labor in the last election did so because of her statement above.

She has sold us into financial slavery, our carbon tax European ETS will be making money for the Rothchilds, the Rocerfellas, the morgans the Grenfeilds and the list goes on.

We will be shipping bucket loads of Australian tax payers money into these bankers hands.

The worst thing about this is they couldn't give a hoot about the environment.

And why should we be giving 10% of our carbon tax to the United nations?

Now that is treason, is it not.

Who the hell is she working for the banks, the UN or Australia.


Quote:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/gillard-vows-to-double-money-to-imf-20111103-1mx70.html A quota increase would also increase the influence in IMF decision-making of key emerging market countries, particularly those in Asia. SDRs are a form of special purpose money credited to the accounts of IMF member states that can be used to boost currency reserves and smooth exchange rate volatility. Australia’s quota can be drawn on by the IMF and used in lending to borrowing IMF member countries. As it is an exchange of assets - a basket of currencies consisting of the euro, yen, pound sterling and US dollar - the increase by Australia won’t have a direct impact on the federal budget’s fiscal or underlying cash balances. Ms Gillard is also expected to push for key bodies including the IMF, International Labour Organisation, World Trade Organisation and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to work together to create jobs Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/gillard-vows-to-double-money-to-imf-20111103-1mx70.html#ixzz1lx77sOWF

The details are on the treasury website. 

There is no conspiracy here Ajax ?

We've been lending money to the IMF for decades.



Ajax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

Julia Gillard Is the bankers golden girl, mate they have her in their back pockets, she will be handing over $10 billion to the IMF. Who owns the IMF, Goldman Sachs etc etc. Who has recently farked the world up Goldman sachs etc etc . These are the people she supports. If this deal was so good why doesn't she tell us the details, there would be nothing to loose right. Fact is they will get this money from thin air and then we will be paying the ineterest. How can you believe a person who said Quote: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Julia Gillard Only to fool us all and introduce it, people that voted for labor in the last election did so because of her statement above. She has sold us into financial slavery, our carbon tax European ETS will be making money for the Rothchilds, the Rocerfellas, the morgans the Grenfeilds and the list goes on. We will be shipping bucket loads of Australian tax payers money into these bankers hands. The worst thing about this is they couldn't give a hoot about the environment. And why should we be giving 10% of our carbon tax to the United nations? Now that is treason, is it not. Who the hell is she working for the banks, the UN or Australia. [quote]http://www.theage.com.au/business/gillard-vows-to-double-money-to-imf-20111103-1mx70.html A quota increase would also increase the influence in IMF decision-making of key emerging market countries, particularly those in Asia. SDRs are a form of special purpose money credited to the accounts of IMF member states that can be used to boost currency reserves and smooth exchange rate volatility. Australia’s quota can be drawn on by the IMF and used in lending to borrowing IMF member countries. As it is an exchange of assets - a basket of currencies consisting of the euro, yen, pound sterling and US dollar - the increase by Australia won’t have a direct impact on the federal budget’s fiscal or underlying cash balances. Ms Gillard is also expected to push for key bodies including the IMF, International Labour Organisation, World Trade Organisation and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to work together to create jobs Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/gillard-vows-to-double-money-to-imf-20111103-1mx70.html#ixzz1lx77sOWF

[/quote]

Would you buy an idea off these people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2kMAfJggU

Quote:

Doctor Jolly wrote: The details are on the treasury website.  There is no conspiracy here Ajax ? We've been lending money to the IMF for decades.

Hey doc

Dont you find it rather odd that we support an organisation such as the IMF which can only or best be described as financial terrorists?

Look what they are doing in Europe, they are actually wanting to take away the sovereingnty of some of those nations.

Why should we be giving Australian tax payer dollars to them.

Also what about the UN climate change fund we will be giving them 10% of all Australian revenue from the carbon tax every year for ever and a day, its not a one off thing.

Now to me that is treason, because our leaders are not putting the wealth fare of Australia first when they are doing these things.

Looks like they are becoming a part of the new world order to me, and like most other things that matter we will not get a say on whether we should or shouldn't.

“Remember, Where You Have a Concentration of Power In a Few Hands,
All Too Frequently, Men With The Mentality of Gangsters Gain Control. History Has Proven That ...
POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT; ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.”
- British historian, Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 1887

Grey wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

“Remember, Where You Have a Concentration of Power In a Few Hands, All Too Frequently, Men With The Mentality of Gangsters Gain Control. History Has Proven That ... POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT; ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.” - British historian, Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 1887

Oh, man! That's so original. And deep. Do you have any other old cliches?
Last man standing is the bus conductor. Stuff like that.

No Soren but we do have that old favourite -Tutenkaham was a Mummy's Boy or how about Hitler was always in such a bad mood because he was a Sour Kraut.