Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles.

gosh, well that's the end of that.

Yep.

This is why Liberals refuse to discuss their policies.

This is why Abbott is refusing to front up to a real interview.

____ wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles.

We have direct action in my country. We do not tax our people and we have government action to play our part.

Why do you want people to pay more to live? You should want cost of living to be lower not higher?

Greens win you know I think 90% of your posts is always on either environment or boat people?

This forum seem obsessed about carbon and Asian boat people!!!   ;D

the Carbon Tax and ETS is an illegal abuse of the powers of the Crown against Australian people.  They have gone Ferrel.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:14pm:

____ wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:11pm: Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles. We have direct action in my country. We do not tax our people and we have government action to play our part. Why do you want people to pay more to live? You should want cost of living to be lower not higher?

With Lib's direct action policy, Abbott wants to cement coal electricity for Australian homes. Coal electricity is on trajectory to be more expensive than Green's electricity within a few years..

This mean Liberals want higher coal electricity prices to keep their large coal owner donors happy. Donors like Clive Palmer.

Extreme electricity prices for all Australian homes and businesses.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:17pm:

Greens win you know I think 90% of your posts is always on either environment or boat people? This forum seem obsessed about carbon and Asian boat people!!!   ;D

Perhaps if you have personal comments, you take it to chat.

This thread is on Liberal's direct action and other topics the qanda panel discuss.

The Crown may not introduce measures or act in a manner that places the citizens  of Australia at an economic disadvantage by law.

JC Denton wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:12pm:

gosh, well that's the end of that.

lol oh well, lets just pack up and go home.

Q&A did no such thing. The bed wetting greeny is just excited that all that scaremongering the greens have invested into him is finaly becoming useful.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:43pm:

JC Denton wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:12pm: gosh, well that's the end of that. lol oh well, lets just pack up and go home. Q&A did no such thing. The bed wetting greeny is just excited that all that scaremongering the greens have invested into him is finaly becoming useful.

Mr Abbott is the one in interview hiding. Libs have been told to not discuss their direct action.

Liberals are the ones who have said Whyalla will be wiped off the map. It is still there.
The economy will crumble, hasn't happened.

People will now start wondering, if he has lied on everything else, how honest is this direct action policy.

Tonight we have seen how fragil Direct Action is.

____ wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:43pm: JC Denton wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:12pm: gosh, well that's the end of that. lol oh well, lets just pack up and go home. Q&A did no such thing. The bed wetting greeny is just excited that all that scaremongering the greens have invested into him is finaly becoming useful. Mr Abbott is the one in interview hiding. Libs have been told to not discuss their direct action. Liberals are the ones who have said Whyalla will be wiped off the map. It is still there. The economy will crumble, hasn't happened. People will now start wondering, if he has lied on everything else, how honest is this direct action policy. Tonight we have seen how fragil Direct Action is.

How can direct action be fragile if the liberals didnt talk about it? Your logic is still screwed.

I saw the Q&A and both sides looked pretty stupid.

You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise?

Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear.

Shane B wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:03pm:

You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear.

This is one of Libs weak points. Coal electricity is on trajectory of being more expensive than Green electricity.

Direct Action wants to cement expensive coal electricity while attacking soon to be cheaper Green energy electricity.

This will cause Australia to lose any economic advantage. This will destroy any manufacturing base.

And the reason they are going this way, all the voters have to do is follow the money trail.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:00pm:

____ wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:55pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:43pm: JC Denton wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:12pm: gosh, well that's the end of that. lol oh well, lets just pack up and go home. Q&A did no such thing. The bed wetting greeny is just excited that all that scaremongering the greens have invested into him is finaly becoming useful. Mr Abbott is the one in interview hiding. Libs have been told to not discuss their direct action. Liberals are the ones who have said Whyalla will be wiped off the map. It is still there. The economy will crumble, hasn't happened. People will now start wondering, if he has lied on everything else, how honest is this direct action policy. Tonight we have seen how fragil Direct Action is. How can direct action be fragile if the liberals didnt talk about it? Your logic is still screwed. I saw the Q&A and both sides looked pretty stupid.

The Amount of trees and land required to achieve the target for soil sequestration.

Also drought decreases the ability for soil to take up carbon. Has this been accounted for in Lib's direct action.

That cash will be paid out to the polluters to clean up their pollution. How will this be policed?

Also will it be a motivation for the polluters to increase pollution, so to get get a bigger hand out.

Also who will be paying for these hand outs. Tax Payers?

Direct Action is a stunt and tonight we saw how easy this is exposed.

I don't think you are being fair. Tony Abbott also supports keeping the RET.

What do you think of that policy?

One of Liberals current message to be kept on by MP is :

"the carbon tax does nothing for the environment"

Yet it is funding the Clean Green Energy Fund.

The fund that will assist in building our Clean Green Electricity. Our Clean Green Electricity that will replace our expensive and dirty coal electricity, and so keep Australia's economy competitive.


Libs want to destroy the Clean Green Energy Fund, so that the cheaper Clean Green Energy revolution doesn't happen. Dirty coal electricity remains and disadvantages Australia's economy. While financially punishes Australian households through electricity and everything that requires electricity in it's process.

And once again, the reason, follow libs donation money trail to people like Clive Palmer.

Sophie Mirrabella again showed the majority of coalition front benches have nothing more than slogans.
Everytime she was asked to explain coalition policy, and she was given several opportunites on different ones, she failed.
Stated the coalition press slogan/talking point and then moved on to the usual dirvel of ,corrupt,bad, incompetant etc etc Labor.
Not once did she even seem to know what the policy was in full,no details no nothing.

Now I don't know if the rest of are happy to elect your nations government on nothing more than "where not them" and hope the aren't as bad or even worse but I'm not.
Comparisions to the Howard Global economy and the Global economy now are not only unfair but misleading, so the trust us we had Howard/Costello does not wash, Howards front bench could articulate their ministerial policy and more broadly the party policy competently.


To prempt the predictable retort of "wait" you can say it until your blue in the face.
And everytime I will reply, not caring who 1st started it that I deserve better.

As a taxpayer  of 26 years I believe Tony has, as he says, started the campaign and he has put on record he will abolish certain taxes and bring in his own.(Sophie a levy is a tax, remember that argument after QLD?)
I want to know where's the money coming from, I don't care what Labor is or was doing.

Start answering questions with what your going to do not what Labor is or has.
I'm one of the few that wants to make an informed vote not just a nod and wink  ;) "trust us"which is what I'm getting now >:(

I'm not sure how anyone could argue against you, smithy. I find it insulting that Abbott believes he can just put his hand up without outlining the way he wants to take us forward. It seems like Abbott is scared of the people, I wonder why?

Shane B wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:03pm:

You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear.

Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!!

Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy???


Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone???

::) ::) ::)

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

Carbon tax has left the news cycle already.

The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:40am:

Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot.

Is it any wonder.

https://img.skitch.com/20120702-e81yyg59mx2e8xfn338ck1199c.jpg

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:40am:

Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot.

It is likely to come into the news when everyone gets electricity bill shock.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:42am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:40am: Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot. Is it any wonder. https://img.skitch.com/20120702-e81yyg59mx2e8xfn338ck1199c.jpg

But you said yourself that the government has no control over price rises. So how do they compensate to 20cents?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:44am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:40am: Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot. It is likely to come into the news when everyone gets electricity bill shock.

And how much of that rise will be due to the carbon tax, progs?

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:44am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:40am: Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot. It is likely to come into the news when everyone gets electricity bill shock. And how much of that rise will be due to the carbon tax, progs?

More than what I voted for, MOTR

You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:44am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:40am: Carbon tax has left the news cycle already. The world didnt end.  Liberals are shot. It is likely to come into the news when everyone gets electricity bill shock.

Which will come in, in dribs and drabs.  No big shock.

Sorry to say this, but the carbon tax is over. Its in, its small, and its not an election winner.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:50am:

You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you?

Zero.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:14pm:

____ wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:11pm: Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles. We have direct action in my country. We do not tax our people and we have government action to play our part. Why do you want people to pay more to live? You should want cost of living to be lower not higher?

Who Pays? The Americans? Or do Israeli politicians pay for policies out of their own pocket?

There you go RWhingers, you should all bugger off to Israel the wonderland where nobody pays tax ;D

I just went to www.news.com.au and didnt see anything about the carbon tax on the front page.

I then went to www.smh.com.au and didnt see anything about the carbon tax on the front page.

Old news already ?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:53am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:50am: You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you? Zero.

What a fool!

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:53am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:50am: You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you? Zero. What a fool! ;D

Zero. The current tax pool, no new tax, means ZERO.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:53am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:50am: You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you? Zero.

I didn't realise you weren't a tax payer, progs. Either you believe in the magic pudding or you don't believe direct action has a cost.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:02am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:53am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:50am: You voted for direct action, progs. Any idea how much that is going to cost you? Zero. I didn't realise you weren't a tax payer, progs. Either you believe in the magic pudding or you don't believe direct action has a cost.

It will not cost me an extra dime in tax.

But you will have to pay for whatever services are taken away from you. At the moment you are being compensated for the extra tax you have to pay.

Abbott needs your tax dollars to fund his direct action plan. How do you know he won't increase other taxes?

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:07am:

But you will have to pay for whatever services are taken away from you. At the moment you are being compensated for the extra tax you have to pay.

May be the case, may not. May be the case that labor have 30000 too many public servants. May be the case that labor have enough wasted monies that it gets covered by cleaning up.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:10am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:07am: But you will have to pay for whatever services are taken away from you. At the moment you are being compensated for the extra tax you have to pay. May be the case, may not. May be the case that labor have 30000 too many public servants. May be the case that labor have enough wasted monies that it gets covered by cleaning up.

O.K. Before we buy into this direct action plan let's ask Tony where the money is coming from.

http://pestcontrol-anaheim.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/anaheim-cricket-removal.jpg

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:13am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:10am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:07am: But you will have to pay for whatever services are taken away from you. At the moment you are being compensated for the extra tax you have to pay. May be the case, may not. May be the case that labor have 30000 too many public servants. May be the case that labor have enough wasted monies that it gets covered by cleaning up. O.K. Before we buy into this direct action plan let's ask Tony where the money is coming from.

Yes that me be a bit more guarded until closer to election. I am willing to wait. There is nothing from now to then that the opposition can do anyway.

What, besides outlining a workable alternative plan. Abbott has committed himself to a 5% cut in CO2 that nobody believes he can deliver. At least when Gillard promised a price on carbon without a tax, she believed she would have the numbers in the house to deliver her promise.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:24am:

What, besides outlining a workable alternative plan. Abbott has committed himself to a 5% cut in CO2 that nobody believes he can deliver.

Well as that doesnt really concern me, 5% of 1.3% of 3% of which gives a 0.0008 degress cooling lol. Hardly worth bothering about. But hey, thats me.

So we should get all hot and bothered when Gillard breaks a promise, yet give Abbott a free licence to lie to us.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:26am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:24am: What, besides outlining a workable alternative plan. Abbott has committed himself to a 5% cut in CO2 that nobody believes he can deliver. Well as that doesnt really concern me, 5% of 1.3% of 3% of which gives a 0.0008 degress cooling lol. Hardly worth bothering about. But hey, thats me.

If you don't understand your fallacy of composition by now, progs, you really are a lost cause.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:28am:

So we should get all hot and bothered when Gillard breaks a promise, yet give Abbott a free licence to lie to us.

Well I have said, people have this uncanny ability to define their anger toward circumstance. As the circumstance of Abbott, if he is lying(unknown lie at this stage) about the 5% which does not concern me, then my anger will be uncannily not be directed toward something that does not bother me nor impacts me.

As for Gillards lie, well that directly impacts me and is a known lie.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:32am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:28am: So we should get all hot and bothered when Gillard breaks a promise, yet give Abbott a free licence to lie to us. Well I have said, people have this uncanny ability to define their anger toward circumstance. As the circumstance of Abbott, if he is lying(unknown lie at this stage) about the 5% which does not concern me, then my anger will be uncannily not be directed toward something that does not bother me nor impacts me. As for Gillards lie, well that directly impacts me and is a known lie.

ie

http://cdn.ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/hulk-hogan-fingers-in-ears.jpg

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:44pm:

Sophie Mirrabella again showed the majority of coalition front benches have nothing more than slogans. Everytime she was asked to explain coalition policy, and she was given several opportunites on different ones, she failed. Stated the coalition press slogan/talking point and then moved on to the usual dirvel of ,corrupt,bad, incompetant etc etc Labor. Not once did she even seem to know what the policy was in full,no details no nothing. Now I don't know if the rest of are happy to elect your nations government on nothing more than "where not them" and hope the aren't as bad or even worse but I'm not. Comparisions to the Howard Global economy and the Global economy now are not only unfair but misleading, so the trust us we had Howard/Costello does not wash, Howards front bench could articulate their ministerial policy and more broadly the party policy competently. To prempt the predictable retort of "wait" you can say it until your blue in the face. And everytime I will reply, not caring who 1st started it that I deserve better. As a taxpayer  of 26 years I believe Tony has, as he says, started the campaign and he has put on record he will abolish certain taxes and bring in his own.(Sophie a levy is a tax, remember that argument after QLD?) I want to know where's the money coming from, I don't care what Labor is or was doing. Start answering questions with what your going to do not what Labor is or has. I'm one of the few that wants to make an informed vote not just a nod and wink  ;) "trust us"which is what I'm getting now >:(

Couldn't have said it any better myself. At this point, I have almost no faith in the current Coalition. Will they be much better than the present lot? My hopes aren't high, but as long as reapealing the carbon tax is one of their policies, then they have my vote.

Hopefully it will be like Kevin Rudd in reverse. I fell for all the spin and bluff, I was against work choices, so that's why I voted Labor, but I also though that he would make a good PM. How wrong I was. I think that Tony Abbott will make lousy PM. Hopefully I will be wrong there. But I know one thing for certain as long as Gillard is leader, and/or the carbon tax remains their policy, Labor will never ever ever be getting my vote again.

It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others.

john_g wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:45am:

Couldn't have said it any better myself. At this point, I have almost no faith in the current Coalition. Will they be much better than the present lot? My hopes aren't high, but as long as reapealing the carbon tax is one of their policies, then they have my vote. Hopefully it will be like Kevin Rudd in reverse. I fell for all the spin and bluff, I was against work choices, so that's why I voted Labor,

So hypothetically, given a choice between workchoices and the carbon tax, which one would you chose ?

I think abbott is about equally likely to bring in workchoices as he is to repeal the carbon tax.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:53am:

It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others.

I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like.

It's not about the party, progs. It is about us, the people. The people want a Turnbull led Liberal government, they will not get that choice.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:59am:

It's not about the party, progs. It is about us, the people. The people want a Turnbull led Liberal government, they will not get that choice.

No they dont. They would rather a stable party. Turnbull failed. He is on the heap.

They do not want Abbott. He will not bring stability.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:54am:

john_g wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:45am: Couldn't have said it any better myself. At this point, I have almost no faith in the current Coalition. Will they be much better than the present lot? My hopes aren't high, but as long as reapealing the carbon tax is one of their policies, then they have my vote. Hopefully it will be like Kevin Rudd in reverse. I fell for all the spin and bluff, I was against work choices, so that's why I voted Labor, So hypothetically, given a choice between workchoices and the carbon tax, which one would you chose ? I think abbott is about equally likely to bring in workchoices as he is to repeal the carbon tax.

Work choices. But I don't think Aboott will reintroduce it.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:59am:

It's not about the party, progs. It is about us, the people. The people want a Turnbull led Liberal government, they will not get that choice.

Exactly. Just like they want Rudd to lead Labor, not Gillard.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 10:55am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:53am: It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others. I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like.

The evidence is that the party hasn't a clue where Abbott is headed or what their policies are. If in any doubt just watch Qanda last night where Grahame Morris seemed to have a better grasp of coalition policies than their front bencher Mirabella who had all the wit and grasp of a house brick.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:00am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:59am: It's not about the party, progs. It is about us, the people. The people want a Turnbull led Liberal government, they will not get that choice. No they dont. They would rather a stable party. Turnbull failed. He is on the heap.

He only failed to hold his position because he was unwilling to place personal political ambition above integrity. We all know that Turnbull would have broken the parliamentary deadlock on the asylum seeker issue. Instead we have a Liberal leader who would rather provide political bullets to the shock jocks than save lives.


Quote:

One well-placed Liberal source told The Australian that Abbott would rather see Labor continue to bleed politically with ongoing boat arrivals. If that means deaths at sea continue, he said, so be it.

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:04am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:53am: It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others. I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like. The evidence is that the party hasn't a clue where Abbott is headed or what their policies are. If in any doubt just watch Qanda last night where Grahame Morris seemed to have a better grasp of coalition policies than their front bencher Mirabella who had all the wit and grasp of a house brick.

Yes I did watch it, no he didnt.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:09am:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 11:04am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:53am: It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others. I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like. The evidence is that the party hasn't a clue where Abbott is headed or what their policies are. If in any doubt just watch Qanda last night where Grahame Morris seemed to have a better grasp of coalition policies than their front bencher Mirabella who had all the wit and grasp of a house brick. Yes I did watch it, no he didnt.

Quite right Progs, Morris & Mirrabella seemed to have no idea what the policies were or how they are to be achieved.
A Front Bencher & major strategist
Really makes me want to trust that they will be better just because they are Liberal.
What a joke!

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:09am:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 11:04am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:53am: It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others. I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like. The evidence is that the party hasn't a clue where Abbott is headed or what their policies are. If in any doubt just watch Qanda last night where Grahame Morris seemed to have a better grasp of coalition policies than their front bencher Mirabella who had all the wit and grasp of a house brick. Yes I did watch it, no he didnt.

Yes he did.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 10:14pm:

____ wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:11pm: Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles. We have direct action in my country. We do not tax our people and we have government action to play our part. Why do you want people to pay more to live? You should want cost of living to be lower not higher?

This is a case where there is no real tax with the carbon tax but the direct action plan is fully funded by tax.

Figure that out the method which is claimed to not be a tax is absolutly nothing else in any terms.

Moving to a lower carbon economy now will very likely save everyone a lot of money and result ultimatly in a lower cost of living than the other option.

At the end of the day it may not be a case of paying more to live, if the temp increases as expected the equation may quickly change from paying more to live to just to live.

The expectation is that if temperature were to rise by 4 or 5 degrees we would no longer have the capacity to feed around 50% of the worlds population.

Paying more to live could become a literal fact.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 11:09am: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 11:04am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: MOTR wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 10:53am: It's no good hoping, we need Abbott to start articulating his beliefs and his vision for our future. If we don't like it, the Libs have an alternative leader who does have vision, integrity and respect for others. I am sure the party itself would know where Abbott is headed. They dont need your help in order to tell them they are not going in the direction you like. The evidence is that the party hasn't a clue where Abbott is headed or what their policies are. If in any doubt just watch Qanda last night where Grahame Morris seemed to have a better grasp of coalition policies than their front bencher Mirabella who had all the wit and grasp of a house brick. Yes I did watch it, no he didnt. Quite right Progs, Morris & Mirrabella seemed to have no idea what the policies were or how they are to be achieved. A Front Bencher & major strategist Really makes me want to trust that they will be better just because they are Liberal. What a joke!

They don't know how it is going to work because they have no real plan. They have no direction because they have a leader driven only by political ambition.

MOTR wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:15am:

They don't know how it is going to work because they have no real plan. They have no direction because they have a leader driven only by political ambition.

They don't know how it is going to work ... it just is...

If in doubt, just ask lolly who has made that answer his stock in trade. And even HE knows more about Lieberal policies than Mirabella the house brick!

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 11:13am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:14pm: ____ wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 10:11pm: Show Lib's policy of Direct Action the light of day and the policy and the economics crumbles. We have direct action in my country. We do not tax our people and we have government action to play our part. Why do you want people to pay more to live? You should want cost of living to be lower not higher? This is a case where there is no real tax with the carbon tax but the direct action plan is fully funded by tax. Figure that out the method which is claimed to not be a tax is absolutly nothing else in any terms. Moving to a lower carbon economy now will very likely save everyone a lot of money and result ultimatly in a lower cost of living than the other option. At the end of the day it may not be a case of paying more to live, if the temp increases as expected the equation may quickly change from paying more to live to just to live. The expectation is that if temperature were to rise by 4 or 5 degrees we would no longer have the capacity to feed around 50% of the worlds population. Paying more to live could become a literal fact.

There are massive long term economic advantages that stem from starting the transition today. What Abbott is advocating will turn Australia into an economic backwater. The man has no vision.

Shane B wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 11:03pm:

You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise?

That's right, Shane B. These leftards want to find out what the future policy will be - how pathetic.

They should just suck it up.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:21am:

Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised???

How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!!

::) ::) ::)

Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.
Frank Dane

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane

How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits.

No-one is slowing their use of carbon dioxide. The poor can carry on as they are compensated and the rest have enough money for it not to be a crisis in order to slow down.

So how exactly.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:18pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. No-one is slowing their use of carbon dioxide.

Its been in place 2 days. What evidence do you have no-one is slowing their use of co2.


Quote:

The poor can carry on as they are compensated and the rest have enough money for it not to be a crisis in order to slow down. So how exactly.

Stupid people may do this. Smart people will reduce co2 generation and pocket the difference.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. No-one is slowing their use of carbon dioxide. Its been in place 2 days. What evidence do you have no-one is slowing their use of co2. Quote: The poor can carry on as they are compensated and the rest have enough money for it not to be a crisis in order to slow down. So how exactly. Stupid people may do this. Smart people will reduce co2 generation and pocket the difference.

But as you guys think Australians are stupid (polls, remember them), then you are screwed

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:18pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits.

Here is a link to help you understand!!!

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work

Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs???

:-? :-? :-?

Direct action has major holes:

It plans on reducing co2 by absorbing co2 from atmosphere, rather than reducing the amount generated.
On current estimates, that would mean re-foresting all arable land in Australia.

Imagine the costs of that. Not only for the green-army, but loss of productivity of farm land.

This may let us hit our 2020 target, but what then. The country is at full co2 storage capacity (no new land for trees), and we are still increasing our co2 generation ?
We may be 5% down by 2020, but 2030 is likely to be 30% higher.

No new taxes will pay for it. The cost of just seedlings would be in the billions of dollars for these tree's, if you could get volunteer planters.  But no farmer will volunteer, and no greeny will volunteer.  And will the farmer require compulsary aquisition of his land.  That will cost trillions of dollars.  Probably more than many years of GDP.

This is why the libs wont answer any questions about it.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. Here is a link to help you understand!!! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs??? :-? :-? :-?

Ask Tony Abbott lol. It matters not if it works or not as far as im concerned, but seeing as the carbon tax has no chance in hell of achieving the 5% reduction simply by way of its compensation, then I find it remarkable that you are concerned about direct action achieving it.

I will say this for Progs at least he is prepared to make a fool of himself.....The rest of the Liberal faithful are to scared to debate Direct Action and be exposed as having no idea!!!

:) :) :)

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:28pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. Here is a link to help you understand!!! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs??? :-? :-? :-? Ask Tony Abbott lol. It matters not if it works or not as far as im concerned....

So you have no idea how it will work or how much it will cost ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. Here is a link to help you understand!!! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs??? :-? :-? :-? Ask Tony Abbott lol. It matters not if it works or not as far as im concerned, but seeing as the carbon tax has no chance in hell of achieving the 5% reduction simply by way of its compensation, then I find it remarkable that you are concerned about direct action achieving it. So you have no idea how it will work or how much it will cost ?

You seem to think that it matters to me. I am very happy to wait until the election.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:28pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. Here is a link to help you understand!!! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs??? :-? :-? :-? Ask Tony Abbott lol. It matters not if it works or not as far as im concerned, but seeing as the carbon tax has no chance in hell of achieving the 5% reduction simply by way of its compensation, then I find it remarkable that you are concerned about direct action achieving it.

Yet economists have stated an ETS will work and is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.....Do you have any evidence to support your claim that an ETS will not work but Direct Action will or are we just supposed to accept your word for it???

::) ::) ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Direct action has major holes: It plans on reducing co2 by absorbing co2 from atmosphere, rather than reducing the amount generated. On current estimates, that would mean re-foresting all arable land in Australia. Imagine the costs of that. Not only for the green-army, but loss of productivity of farm land. This may let us hit our 2020 target, but what then. The country is at full co2 storage capacity (no new land for trees), and we are still increasing our co2 generation ? We may be 5% down by 2020, but 2030 is likely to be 30% higher. No new taxes will pay for it. The cost of just seedlings would be in the billions of dollars for these tree's, if you could get volunteer planters.  But no farmer will volunteer, and no greeny will volunteer.  And will the farmer require compulsary aquisition of his land.  That will cost trillions of dollars.  Probably more than many years of GDP. This is why the libs wont answer any questions about it.

Tony will probably expect the unemployed to do it as a WfD project.

Actually, that's probably the ONLY way it'd be remotely viable.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:18pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:21am: Shane B wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:03pm: You are only obsessed with Abbott's direct action plan because you know he will be PM by theend of 2013. Why keep harping on about it otherwise? Coal will always be required for baseload power, unless we go nuclear. Bullshit.....Natural Gas can be used to deliver base load power and Geothermal has potential for the same base load capacity.....The problem is with the Liberal Parties refusal to debate the merits of their Direct Action policy!!! Direct Action relies on storing carbon in soil to achieve 60 % of their emissions targets.....Storing carbon in soil is not counted towards the protocol.....Is experimental and will not achieve the reductions claimed by the Opposition.....How do Coalition voters justify these glaring failures in the Abbott Direct Action policy??? Any Liberal voters care to support Direct Action and explain how it will achieve 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 when its core element is not even counted towards targets......Anyone??? ::) ::) ::) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html Still no Coalition supporter can defend Direct Action and the fact it will not work.....Why am I not surprised??? How will Abbott defend his crap policy once he must cost it and explain how it will work....60% of Abbott's emissions are unachievable.....The policy is pure crap and the faithful are to scared to debate its merits.....You have been warned!!! ::) ::) ::) Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. Frank Dane How is the carbon tax going to achieve the 5% reduction. Redistribution of wealth. Buy carbon credits. Here is a link to help you understand!!! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1133092/How-does-the-ETS-work Now how will Direct Action achieve a 5% reduction in emissions Progs??? :-? :-? :-? Ask Tony Abbott lol. It matters not if it works or not as far as im concerned, but seeing as the carbon tax has no chance in hell of achieving the 5% reduction simply by way of its compensation, then I find it remarkable that you are concerned about direct action achieving it. Yet economists have stated an ETS will work and is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.....Do you have any evidence to support your claim that an ETS will not work but Direct Action will or are we just supposed to accept your word for it??? ::) ::) ::)

I am sure they have, just like they said there will be a GFC. Oh no they didnt. Thats right, they are in it for themselves. Dopey bunch who have you suckered.

Kat wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: Direct action has major holes: It plans on reducing co2 by absorbing co2 from atmosphere, rather than reducing the amount generated. On current estimates, that would mean re-foresting all arable land in Australia. Imagine the costs of that. Not only for the green-army, but loss of productivity of farm land. This may let us hit our 2020 target, but what then. The country is at full co2 storage capacity (no new land for trees), and we are still increasing our co2 generation ? We may be 5% down by 2020, but 2030 is likely to be 30% higher. No new taxes will pay for it. The cost of just seedlings would be in the billions of dollars for these tree's, if you could get volunteer planters.  But no farmer will volunteer, and no greeny will volunteer.  And will the farmer require compulsary aquisition of his land.  That will cost trillions of dollars.  Probably more than many years of GDP. This is why the libs wont answer any questions about it. Tony will probably expect the unemployed to do it as a WfD project.

Our uemployed stocks are dangerously low at only 5%.  I doubt there is enough of them to plant the 5 trillion tree's required.

But Im still worried about land acquisition.

This has the smell of pol pot about it.
Pol Pot: "During his time in power he imposed agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects. "

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Direct action has major holes: It plans on reducing co2 by absorbing co2 from atmosphere, rather than reducing the amount generated. On current estimates, that would mean re-foresting all arable land in Australia. Imagine the costs of that. Not only for the green-army, but loss of productivity of farm land. This may let us hit our 2020 target, but what then. The country is at full co2 storage capacity (no new land for trees), and we are still increasing our co2 generation ? We may be 5% down by 2020, but 2030 is likely to be 30% higher. No new taxes will pay for it. The cost of just seedlings would be in the billions of dollars for these tree's, if you could get volunteer planters.  But no farmer will volunteer, and no greeny will volunteer.  And will the farmer require compulsary aquisition of his land.  That will cost trillions of dollars.  Probably more than many years of GDP. This is why the libs wont answer any questions about it.

Direct Action is a load of crap.....The Coalition have ensured Australia will remain dependent on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future.....When it all turns to crap the Australian people will hold Abbott and the Coalition responsible.....When the rest of the world starts trading in carbon permits Australia will fall behind and have no way of attracting investment.....Doing nothing is all Direct Action can offer....That is deniers like it!!!

::) ::) ::)

So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:41pm:

So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::)

But yet you do. You can go now.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:41pm:

So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::)

So the left follow scientists who cant prove AGW. Follow politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised, follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo, not a word.

Talk about complete stupid mushrooms.

Love of socialist reform is not a love many people have. you may be better to ask people to cut their arms off instead of have them follow you.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:46pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:41pm: So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::) So the left follow scientists who cant prove AGW. Follow politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised, follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo, not a word.

Did Alan Jones predict the GFC ?

Actually the economists did predict the GFC, because they started it.  They all knew some months before that a lot of money was sitting on a house of cards, and one major leveraged asset price drop, and the thing would unravel.   Just needed someone to pull the trigger. Someone (an economist) did.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:41pm: So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::) So the left follow scientists who cant prove AGW. Follow politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised, follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo, not a word. Talk about complete stupid mushrooms. Love of socialist reform is not a love many people have. you may be better to ask people to cut their arms off instead of have them follow you. Did Alan Jones predict the GFC ? Actually the economists did predict the GFC, because they started it.  They all knew some months before that a lot of money was sitting on a house of cards, and one major leveraged asset price drop, and the thing would unravel.   Just needed someone to pull the trigger. Someone (an economist) did.

Yes, exactly. In it for themselves.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:02pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:41pm: So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::) So the left follow scientists who cant prove AGW. Follow politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised, follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo, not a word. Talk about complete stupid mushrooms. Love of socialist reform is not a love many people have. you may be better to ask people to cut their arms off instead of have them follow you. Did Alan Jones predict the GFC ? Actually the economists did predict the GFC, because they started it.  They all knew some months before that a lot of money was sitting on a house of cards, and one major leveraged asset price drop, and the thing would unravel.   Just needed someone to pull the trigger. Someone (an economist) did. Yes, exactly. In it for themselves.

Has an Alan Jones prediction ever come true ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:08pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:02pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:41pm: So the argument from the right is economists, scientists and politicians of all persuasions are wrong and Alan Jones is on the money.....How can you argue with plain stupidity??? ::) ::) ::) So the left follow scientists who cant prove AGW. Follow politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised, follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo, not a word. Talk about complete stupid mushrooms. Love of socialist reform is not a love many people have. you may be better to ask people to cut their arms off instead of have them follow you. Did Alan Jones predict the GFC ? Actually the economists did predict the GFC, because they started it.  They all knew some months before that a lot of money was sitting on a house of cards, and one major leveraged asset price drop, and the thing would unravel.   Just needed someone to pull the trigger. Someone (an economist) did. Yes, exactly. In it for themselves. Has an Alan Jones prediction ever come true ?

I wouldn't know. I am sure if you ask 2GB, they may be able to be of more help.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:46pm:

scientists who cant prove AGW

Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well?


progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:46pm:

politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised

Tony telling you you a cost on business is a tax, but his donating of tax payer $$ is not.
Tell me which one uses TAXPAYERS money & which one gives the consumer choice on where & how much of their income goes to something.

Tony also told us no new taxes, but is imposing a "Levy"(flood levy = tax, PPL Levy does not = tax according to Mirrabella, can you translate?) on every business that TURNS OVER more than 5 million.
Not Gross profit, not net profit but TURNOVER. I would have to grow my business by about 30% to reach that & I've only got 4 permanent employees.



progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 1:46pm:

follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo

Actually quite a few economists were warning of the problem, pity more didn't heed their warnings instead of demonizing them.(sound familiar?)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: scientists who cant prove AGW Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well? progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: politicians that lie to the public and do an exact opposite policy to what they promised Tony telling you you a cost on business is a tax, but his donating of tax payer $$ is not. Tell me which one uses TAXPAYERS money & which one gives the consumer choice on where & how much of their income goes to something. Tony also told us no new taxes, but is imposing a "Levy"(flood levy = tax, PPL Levy does not = tax according to Mirrabella, can you translate?) on every business that TURNS OVER more than 5 million. Not Gross profit, not net profit but TURNOVER. I would have to grow my business by about 30% to reach that & I've only got 4 permanent employees. progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:46pm: follow economists who could figure out that the world economy was in the poo Actually quite a few economists were warning of the problem, pity more didn't heed their warnings instead of demonizing them.(sound familiar?)

1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none.
2. Not related at all to what I said, so will leave that to you to fix.
3. The only person I know of was Ron Paul in the US. Maybe some glimmer of information from economists, but very little.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:29pm:

1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none.

Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly?

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly?

You are not even close to being true.

The only issue is does the Crown have the legal power to charge citizens for CO2 emissions and economically penalize us to an economic disadvantage in what amounts to subsidizing other countries?  The answer is absolutely not, this is an abuse of the very limitations and legal restrictions placed on the Crown to protect citizens rights.  An emissions trading scheme is not an option.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:13pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true.

So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..."

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:17pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..."

Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us.

Anyway, getting back to "direct action".

I see the liberals have allocated $100m of tax payers money to put solar panels on 1 million houses.

Sound familiar ?

Unfortunetly, maths has not been kind to them, so each house is only getting $100 dollars which will buy about a 20w panel, and no wiring or inverter.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:24pm:

Anyway, getting back to "direct action". I see the liberals have allocated $100m of tax payers money to put solar panels on 1 million houses. Sound familiar ? Unfortunetly, maths has not been kind to them, so each house is only getting $100 dollars which will buy about a 20w panel, and no wiring or inverter. ;D

I dont know what the pledge was but is it a zero cost to the house or is it $100million for subsidising a household and they anticipate 1million household takeup.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:29pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:24pm: Anyway, getting back to "direct action". I see the liberals have allocated $100m of tax payers money to put solar panels on 1 million houses. Sound familiar ? Unfortunetly, maths has not been kind to them, so each house is only getting $100 dollars which will buy about a 20w panel, and no wiring or inverter. ;D I dont know what the pledge was but is it a zero cost to the house or is it $100million for subsidising a household and they anticipate 1million household takeup.

Either way, do you think $100 will make you put solar on your roof ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:29pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:24pm: Anyway, getting back to "direct action". I see the liberals have allocated $100m of tax payers money to put solar panels on 1 million houses. Sound familiar ? Unfortunetly, maths has not been kind to them, so each house is only getting $100 dollars which will buy about a 20w panel, and no wiring or inverter. ;D I dont know what the pledge was but is it a zero cost to the house or is it $100million for subsidising a household and they anticipate 1million household takeup. Either way, do you think $100 will make you put solar on your roof ?

Depends on the price of the solar vs electricity, but no $100 is not a big incentive.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:29pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:24pm: Anyway, getting back to "direct action". I see the liberals have allocated $100m of tax payers money to put solar panels on 1 million houses. Sound familiar ? Unfortunetly, maths has not been kind to them, so each house is only getting $100 dollars which will buy about a 20w panel, and no wiring or inverter. ;D I dont know what the pledge was but is it a zero cost to the house or is it $100million for subsidising a household and they anticipate 1million household takeup. Either way, do you think $100 will make you put solar on your roof ? Depends on the price of the solar vs electricity, but no $100 is not a big incentive.

Current cost of a typical 2kw system is about $5000 and up with double-counting RECS, so more like $12,000 real $. The state liberals have abandoned FIT incentives, so I assume fed liberals wont introduce one.
So $100 is not a big incentive, nor any incentive.
Anyone who just does it for the love of being green, has already done it, so I would say this scheme will produce little more than zero installations.

If Abbott is expecting 1 million 2kw solar systems (peak generating capacity of 2 Gw) he will fail, and would take a sizable chunk of his aim of 5% reduction at 2020. 

He'll either have to stump up more cash, or plant more trees... perhaps in the ocean. :))

Stumping up more cash puts us in the same boat as the rash of inefficient schemes "direct action" schemes  we've seen in the past.

Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020

It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes

One Million Roofs Solar Program
Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition
Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian
families and households.
Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar
power or solar water heating systems.
To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an
extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems. The program would be capped
at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year.
The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive
when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020.
Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by
about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot
water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year.
Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will
therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020.
Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program.
In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel
cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge.


Information from the Direct Action Plan document
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020 It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes One Million Roofs Solar Program Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian families and households. Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar power or solar water heating systems. To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems.The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020. Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year. Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020. Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program. In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge.

Where's the 100 million coming from?
Or is that suddenly an insignificant number?

And it's per year???
700 million dollars by 2020

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:40pm: Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020 It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes One Million Roofs Solar Program Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian families and households. Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar power or solar water heating systems. To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems.The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020. Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year. Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020. Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program. In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge. Where's the 100 million coming from? Or is that suddenly an insignificant number? And it's per year??? 700 million dollars by 2020

Pretty sure if labor can find the money to put us $200BILLION into debt, then liberals could find the small change of upwards of $1billion

The whole thing doesnt make sense.  $700 million ?,   $100 million, who knows.

The detail of "will sit on existing schemes".  What schemes ?

It sounds very much like it will try to revive the roof-top solar industry that state liberal government have been hell bent of destroying over the past year or so.

It just doesnt add up.

Rooftop solar is regarded as one of the MOST expensive forms of co2 abatement, at about $300 to $400 per tonne.
This is exactly why you should let the market decide the solution through a carbon price, rather than the government picking "expensive" winners.
 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:05pm:

The whole thing doesnt make sense.  $700 million ?,   $100 million, who knows. The detail of "will sit on existing schemes".  What schemes ? It sounds very much like it will try to revive the roof-top solar industry that state liberal government have been hell bent of destroying over the past year or so. It just doesnt add up. Rooftop solar is regarded as one of the MOST expensive forms of co2 abatement, at about $300 to $400 per tonne. This is exactly why you should let the market decide the solution through a carbon price, rather than the government picking "expensive" winners.

What you just said does not make sense. If you feel likeit, try to put it together a little better or we can just assume by the information I provided, that the liberals are going to come close to what you sad they promised at a rate of $1billion and less.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:40pm: Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020 It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes One Million Roofs Solar Program Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian families and households. Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar power or solar water heating systems. To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems.The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020. Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year. Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020. Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program. In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge. Where's the 100 million coming from? Or is that suddenly an insignificant number? And it's per year??? 700 million dollars by 2020 Pretty sure if labor can find the money to put us $200BILLION into debt, then liberals could find the small change of upwards of $1billion

Again, as in the beginning of the thread.

I DON'T GIVE A bugger WHAT LABOR IS OR HAS DONE.

I want to know where Tony is finding his money.


His not introducing new taxes(yeah right but PPL anyone)
His campaigned on COL so surely raising existing taxes is out of the question
Which only leaves cutting funding for current programs to fund these new ones.
Remember the 100 million is only a part of the package, his also giving tax $$ to polluters, he'll have to pay farmers to stop farming their land to plant trees, after all 60% of the plan is soil storage.

So we are getting up there, oh & his going to produce a surplus in his 1st term.

Really Progs, are you that gullible?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:11pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 5:05pm: The whole thing doesnt make sense.  $700 million ?,   $100 million, who knows. The detail of "will sit on existing schemes".  What schemes ? It sounds very much like it will try to revive the roof-top solar industry that state liberal government have been hell bent of destroying over the past year or so. It just doesnt add up. Rooftop solar is regarded as one of the MOST expensive forms of co2 abatement, at about $300 to $400 per tonne. This is exactly why you should let the market decide the solution through a carbon price, rather than the government picking "expensive" winners.   What you just said does not make sense. If you feel likeit, try to put it together a little better or we can just assume by the information I provided, that the liberals are going to come close to what you sad they promised at a rate of $1billion and less.

In summary,   they are providing a rebate that is unfunded and too small to achieve its goals, on a scheme that has been tried and failed before, at the most expensive solution possible.

Epic fail.  Either it will fail, or be a massive cost blowout.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020 It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes One Million Roofs Solar Program Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian families and households. Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar power or solar water heating systems. To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems. The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020. Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year. Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020. Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program. In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge. Information from the Direct Action Plan document http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx

Looks like a pretty good scheme if it is affordable and actually goes ahead - I have no idea where they are going to get all the money for their commitments from.

Does this one look like a non core promise?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 5:01pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:40pm: Some info to help along. I think you are missing the point of solar panel or solar hot water systems(and other technology and new ones as they emerge) and that it is $100million per year till 2020 It is $1000 each for 100thousand homes per year. That is better incentive but it doesnt run for 10years so does not equal 1mill homes One Million Roofs Solar Program Borrowing a term previously used in California to promote solar energy use,54 a Coalition Government will provide additional ongoing support for the use of solar energy by Australian families and households. Our goal is for one million additional solar energy roofs on homes by 2020, including either solar power or solar water heating systems. To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems.The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020. Installing an entry level 1kw solar panel on the average household roof will reduce CO2 emissions by about 1.8 tonnes per year. Similarly, replacing an old peak electric hot water system with a solar hot water system will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 3 tonnes per year. Depending on the proportion of rebates provided for solar heating and solar panel, this initiative will therefore provide an additional annual CO2 emissions reduction of 2.4 to 3 million tonnes by 2020. Given their solar energy classification, heat pumps will be eligible under the program. In consultation with the renewable energy sector, we will also consider the inclusion of ceramic fuel cells and other new domestic technologies which may emerge. Where's the 100 million coming from? Or is that suddenly an insignificant number? And it's per year??? 700 million dollars by 2020 Pretty sure if labor can find the money to put us $200BILLION into debt, then liberals could find the small change of upwards of $1billion Again, as in the beginning of the thread. I DON'T GIVE A bugger WHAT LABOR IS OR HAS DONE. I want to know where Tony is finding his money. His not introducing new taxes(yeah right but PPL anyone) His campaigned on COL so surely raising existing taxes is out of the question Which only leaves cutting funding for current programs to fund these new ones. Remember the 100 million is only a part of the package, his also giving tax $$ to polluters, he'll have to pay farmers to stop farming their land to plant trees, after all 60% of the plan is soil storage. So we are getting up there, oh & his going to produce a surplus in his 1st term. Really Progs, are you that gullible?

You will have to wait like the rest of us. It would be nice to forget what labor has done with putting us into $200Billion debt, but it isnt that easy.

I can see the Liberals getting into power and saying that things are a lot worse than we expected, sorry but we can not keep and of our promises and blame Labor for it.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:21pm:

I can see the Liberals getting into power and saying that things are a lot worse than we expected, sorry but we can not keep and of out promises blame Labor for it.

May very well happen. Only problem for liberals and I am sure they know it, is that this policy is to replace the well known lie, so will have trouble making the replacement a lie as well. Second, there is a reduction of 5% that they have committed to.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us.

I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said.

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:29pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said.

So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said. So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence?

Not quite... the original wording was:


Quote:

Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well?

And that was your response. So if you want to choose gravity, go ahead - show us your proof of gravity.

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said. So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence? Not quite... the original wording was: Quote: Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well? And that was your response. So if you want to choose gravity, go ahead - show us your proof of gravity.

Thats fine Gist. I know what empirically testable means, thats what is important to me. Not educating you.

Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::)

Fact lol.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::)

because they can and because they are stuuuuupid ... when they can't bring it in they'll turn around and blame labor ...

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:41pm:

Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said. So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence? Not quite... the original wording was: Quote: Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well? And that was your response. So if you want to choose gravity, go ahead - show us your proof of gravity. Thats fine Gist. I know what empirically testable means, thats what is important to me. Not educating you. I was just shooting my mouth off again. I haven't a clue really.

Fixed it for ya.  :P

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol.

When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!!

::) ::) ::)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/

The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:
 Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned
 Achieve much less than expected
 Cost far more than was budgeted.
This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:41pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said. So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence? Not quite... the original wording was: Quote: Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well? And that was your response. So if you want to choose gravity, go ahead - show us your proof of gravity. Thats fine Gist. I know what empirically testable means, thats what is important to me. Not educating you. I was just shooting my mouth off again. I haven't a clue really. Fixed it for ya.  :P

lol

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 5:23pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: I can see the Liberals getting into power and saying that things are a lot worse than we expected, sorry but we can not keep and of out promises blame Labor for it. May very well happen. Only problem for liberals and I am sure they know it, is that this policy is to replace the well known lie, so will have trouble making the replacement a lie as well. Second, there is a reduction of 5% that they have committed to.

The media will hardly even mention the conservatives in terms of honesty in cases like this. They have got away with breaking promises for decades the rabid media crusaides are reserved for Labor.

The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy.
Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D

Direct Action

A plan which will cost many billions and won't work implimented by a group who don't believe they need a plan which works and would prefer to do nothing.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:25pm:

The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D

Well, you do have to admit that, in many cases, they are exactly that....:-)

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:25pm:

The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D

It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:25pm:

Direct Action A plan which will cost many billions and won't work implimented by a group who don't believe they need a plan which works and would prefer to do nothing.

That's a recipe for failure.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:27pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:25pm: The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation.

Its a levy..Sophie said so    :P

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:25pm: The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation. Its a levy..Sophie said so    :P

and we all know a levy is NOT a tax unless it's imposed by labor ... somehow the rules change when that happens .... I notice Sophie Miratragic sat there like a stunned mullet when it was pointed out to her that many consider a levy to be a tax ... wait, thats the righties ... they were calling the flood levy a tax weren't they .... ohhhh, the hypocrisy .... just when you think they have hit the bottom of the rung with dumb, they prove they can get dumber still .....

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:15pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:25pm: The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation. Its a levy..Sophie said so    :P and we all know a levy is NOT a tax unless it's imposed by labor ... somehow the rules change when that happens .... I notice Sophie Miratragic sat there like a stunned mullet when it was pointed out to her that many consider a levy to be a tax ... wait, thats the righties ... they were calling the flood levy a tax weren't they .... ohhhh, the hypocrisy .... just when you think they have hit the bottom of the rung with dumb, they prove they can get dumber still .....

The Libs will replace the Carbon Tax with a Carbon Levy and the Mining rent tax with a Mining rent levy
Ask any neo con...a levy isnt a tax..it just has exactly the same result  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:15pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:25pm: The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation. Its a levy..Sophie said so    :P and we all know a levy is NOT a tax unless it's imposed by labor ... somehow the rules change when that happens .... I notice Sophie Miratragic sat there like a stunned mullet when it was pointed out to her that many consider a levy to be a tax ... wait, thats the righties ... they were calling the flood levy a tax weren't they .... ohhhh, the hypocrisy .... just when you think they have hit the bottom of the rung with dumb, they prove they can get dumber still ..... The Libs will replace the Carbon Tax with a Carbon Levy and the Mining rent tax with a Mining rent levy Ask any neo con...a levy isnt a tax..it just has exactly the same result  ;D

It walks like a duck, talks like a duck, tastes like a duck... but (according to Tony Abbott) it is in fact a plate of egg and chips ;D

Grey wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:29pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:15pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:25pm: The difference is that under the Labor Party its a Carbon Tax where as under the Liberals it will be a Carbon Levy. Abbott is treating his supporters like idiots and they are lapping it up  ..DOH   ;D It's not a levy - direct action is payed out of direct taxation. Its a levy..Sophie said so    :P and we all know a levy is NOT a tax unless it's imposed by labor ... somehow the rules change when that happens .... I notice Sophie Miratragic sat there like a stunned mullet when it was pointed out to her that many consider a levy to be a tax ... wait, thats the righties ... they were calling the flood levy a tax weren't they .... ohhhh, the hypocrisy .... just when you think they have hit the bottom of the rung with dumb, they prove they can get dumber still ..... The Libs will replace the Carbon Tax with a Carbon Levy and the Mining rent tax with a Mining rent levy Ask any neo con...a levy isnt a tax..it just has exactly the same result  ;D It walks like a duck, talks like a duck, tastes like a duck... but (according to Tony Abbott) it is in fact a plate of egg and chips ;D

That way we will still have exactly what we have now and Abbott hasnt broken any promises..smart political move  :P

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:41pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:29pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:18pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:13pm: Gist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 3:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:29pm: 1. gravity is not the same. nice try though. Gravity has empirical evidence. Climate science has none. Wrong again. There are mountains of proof for climate change, some of it on much better footings than the evidence for gravity. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong lolly? You are not even close to being true. So you've got nothing? I had no illusions that you did of course. You just keep those fingers firmly stuck in your ears and chanting "lolly, lolly, lolly..." Nothing. How so. you made the statement you had evidence or the science has empirical evidence. Show us. I made the claim? Wrong again! I think you will find that YOU made the claim. Look, I've even highlighted it for you because I know how much you love to stand up to anything you've said. So you want the evidence that gravity has empirical evidence? Not quite... the original wording was: Quote: Scientist cannot definitively prove Gravity as well, are you denying it's existence as well? And that was your response. So if you want to choose gravity, go ahead - show us your proof of gravity. Thats fine Gist. I know what empirically testable means, thats what is important to me. Not educating you. I was just shooting my mouth off again. I haven't a clue really. Fixed it for ya.  :P

I have told you before Gist. bugger OFF and quote me in my own words, not yours.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 6:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322

What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from?

You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall.

Is that an admission that Abbott is lying (again)?

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall. Is that an admission that Abbott is lying (again)?

No, it is a wait and see. I dont think either will make the 5% and both will buy credits. I say that because times ticking but you and I, like all, will have to wait for the election.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:35pm:

I have told you before Gist. bugger OFF and quote me in my own words, not yours.

What the hell are you on about? Your words are there, plain as day and untouched down to the atrocious spelling and punctuation. Grow up moron.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 8:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall.

The direct action plan is estimater to require about ten times the spend to achieve the same results as a price on carbon and Abbott has capped his spend at 25% of the carbon price which means that it will have about one fourtieth the impact.

Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:35pm:

Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less.

...AND it'll come directly out of our pockets! It's a direct tax on us so the money can be funnelled to polluters to do nothing at all.

Great plan Lieberals losers!

Gist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:35pm: Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less. ...AND it'll come directly out of our pockets! It's a direct tax on us so the money can be funnelled to polluters to do nothing at all. Great plan Lieberals losers!

Actually the more carbon dioxide they emit the more money they will get, it is actually an incentive to increase the output of carbon take the money on offer payed from our tax dollars and do nothing..

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall. The direct action plan is estimater to require about ten times the spend to achieve the same results as a price on carbon and Abbott has capped his spend at 25% of the carbon price which means that it will have about one fourtieth the impact. Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less.

as much as I understand what you are saying, I will wait and see what gets put on the table at the election.

I am pretty sure for one of the experts opposed to direct action, Abbott will get one that is not. I will wait for all that to unfold and judgements can be made then of the DA.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall. The direct action plan is estimater to require about ten times the spend to achieve the same results as a price on carbon and Abbott has capped his spend at 25% of the carbon price which means that it will have about one fourtieth the impact. Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less. as much as I understand what you are saying, I will wait and see what gets put on the table at the election. I am pretty sure for one of the experts opposed to direct action, Abbott will get one that is not. I will wait for all that to unfold and judgements can be made then of the DA.

It will also be fully costed ny the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Shane B wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:51pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 9:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 6:42pm: Direct Action will not work.....Why do the right continue to ignore this fact??? ::) ::) ::) Fact lol. When 60% of abatement is set to come from soil sequestration it cannot work.....The science is unproven and will not deliver the reductions the Coalition claim it will.....Soil sequestration is not counted towards the protocol so it is a worthless exercise in futility to pursue this policy to combat climate change.....Unless Abbott can get the protocol changed his direct Action policy is crap!!! ::) ::) ::) http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/19/that-was-careless-hunts-climate-policy-just-blew-out-30/ The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan” 1: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:  Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned  Achieve much less than expected  Cost far more than was budgeted. This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12322 What are the %'es of the carbon tax coming from? You cant be upset about one and not the other. As both policies will not achieve the 5%, I think it fair to say that both will be buying carbon credits to make the short fall. The direct action plan is estimater to require about ten times the spend to achieve the same results as a price on carbon and Abbott has capped his spend at 25% of the carbon price which means that it will have about one fourtieth the impact. Whatever the carbon price achieves the direct action plan will get a lot less. as much as I understand what you are saying, I will wait and see what gets put on the table at the election. I am pretty sure for one of the experts opposed to direct action, Abbott will get one that is not. I will wait for all that to unfold and judgements can be made then of the DA. It will also be fully costed ny the Parliamentary Budget Office.

There is a squadron of pigs all warmed up and ready for take off.

Carbon tax claims its first success...


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html


THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said.


One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:12am:

Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies.

Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along.

Whyalla is still there isnt it ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Whyalla is still there isnt it ?

Came from a union dude. Did the union dude say on day 1, I cant remember.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:20am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Whyalla is still there isnt it ? Came from a union dude. Did the union dude say on day 1, I cant remember.

Huh?  are you saying the union dude was "right all along" now.

Would seem to me that the removal of a highly poluting generator without any interuption to power supply is a win for all Australians, delivered by the carbon tax.

Let's go to the tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6NOlZG2mnc&sns=em

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along.

Idiot ... this plant has been closed down for 2 years ... and they cite the main reason as being a reduction in demand ...... you think the power companies might be trying to influence public opion? how much tax would they save if carbon tax is removed ?... I bet you believe all those anti mining tax adds from a couple years ago too.. they were looking out for your benefit too weren't they ....

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Idiot ... this plant has been closed down for 2 years ... and they cite the main reason as being a reduction in demand ...... you think the power companies might be trying to influence public opion? how much tax would they save if carbon tax is removed ?... I bet you believe all those anti mining tax adds from a couple years ago too.. they were looking out for your benefit too weren't they ....

Hey im just going with the flow. If it is good enough to say the carbon tax did it, then it is good enough to say Abbott was right. Make up your mind gang-greeners, thats 2 in 2 days.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Idiot ... this plant has been closed down for 2 years ... and they cite the main reason as being a reduction in demand ...... you think the power companies might be trying to influence public opion? how much tax would they save if carbon tax is removed ?... I bet you believe all those anti mining tax adds from a couple years ago too.. they were looking out for your benefit too weren't they .... Hey im just going with the flow. If it is good enough to say the carbon tax did it, then it is good enough to say Abbott was right. Make up your mind gang-greeners, thats 2 in 2 days.

I think you've lost us.  How is Abbott right ?

This is how the tax works. Carbon intensive businesses find energy efficiencies or they are forced out by their less intensive competitors. You haven't thought this through, have you progs?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 9:43pm:

as much as I understand what you are saying, I will wait and see what gets put on the table at the election. I am pretty sure for one of the experts opposed to direct action, Abbott will get one that is not. I will wait for all that to unfold and judgements can be made then of the DA.

Direct action was on the table for the 2010 election the lack of detail and funding you have is all they are going to give you.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Idiot ... this plant has been closed down for 2 years ... and they cite the main reason as being a reduction in demand ...... you think the power companies might be trying to influence public opion? how much tax would they save if carbon tax is removed ?... I bet you believe all those anti mining tax adds from a couple years ago too.. they were looking out for your benefit too weren't they .... Hey im just going with the flow. If it is good enough to say the carbon tax did it, then it is good enough to say Abbott was right. Make up your mind gang-greeners, thats 2 in 2 days.

that's your whole problem ...incapable of independent thought ... you just go with whatever is popular

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:12am:

Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies.

Being a local in the area I heard the ABC interview the Delta boss on the way home yesterday.

Please note the highlight, he said the station was unviable because of high fuel costs & outdated generators, the CT just just an extra reason, NOT a contributing factor.

The station has been closed but on standby for the last 2 years.

The most frustrating thing was they ended the interview & went to the 5.30 news which then proceeded to report the station closed because of the CT, FFS they just has the bloke on saying it was not.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 9:41am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:38am: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:12am: Carbon tax claims its first success... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-blamed-for-closure-of-polluting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html THE carbon price was the ''final straw'' that forced the closure of the heavily polluting Munmorah coal-fired power plant on the central coast,... Delta Electricity said. One high co2 producer ... gone within 3 days. With no interuption to power supplies. Time for Australia to celebrate. Tony Abbott was right all along. Idiot ... this plant has been closed down for 2 years ... and they cite the main reason as being a reduction in demand ...... you think the power companies might be trying to influence public opion? how much tax would they save if carbon tax is removed ?... I bet you believe all those anti mining tax adds from a couple years ago too.. they were looking out for your benefit too weren't they .... Hey im just going with the flow. If it is good enough to say the carbon tax did it, then it is good enough to say Abbott was right. Make up your mind gang-greeners, thats 2 in 2 days. that's your whole problem ...incapable of independent thought ... you just go with whatever is popular

Ooooh  :'( dont be like that. I cant remember the last time I actually spoke about what a bed wetting green was trying to force me into talking about. I am not going to start now.