Budget 2011: Osborne’s greenwash won’t wash

George Osborne’s fancy footwork over petrol prices and oil company taxes did nothing to combat climate change and prepare the UK for peak oil. The so-called “fair fuel stabiliser” is a simply a sop to drivers.

When global oil prices are high, as they are now, fuel duty will be lowered, with the loss of revenue compensated for by extra tax on profits for companies producing UK North Sea oil and gas.

A UK carbon floor price of £16 per tonne starting in April 2013 was announced. But the carbon price in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme rate is already £17/tonne so the proposed UK floor price is meaningless. The floor price is supposed to rise to £30/tonne in 2020, but it would be far more sensible if it rose steadily year on year.

The money earned from the carbon floor price will pay off public debt rather than being invested in renewables infrastructure. Scandalously, if it does ever come in, the existing nuclear power operators would make windfall gains on their supposedly carbon-free electricity.

The Green Investment Bank will start in 2012, but won’t be able to borrow until 2015 and then only if the public debt has gone down.
To put this bank/fund into perspective, Barclays paid its investment bankers £3.5bn in bonuses for their work in 2010.

Link -
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/osbornes-green-wash-wont-wash/
=====================
So, Conservatives/Carbon & Taxes don't mix

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 9:04pm:

Budget 2011: Osborne’s greenwash won’t wash George Osborne’s fancy footwork over petrol prices and oil company taxes did nothing to combat climate change and prepare the UK for peak oil. The so-called “fair fuel stabiliser” is a simply a sop to drivers. When global oil prices are high, as they are now, fuel duty will be lowered, with the loss of revenue compensated for by extra tax on profits for companies producing UK North Sea oil and gas. A UK carbon floor price of £16 per tonne starting in April 2013 was announced. But the carbon price in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme rate is already £17/tonne so the proposed UK floor price is meaningless. The floor price is supposed to rise to £30/tonne in 2020, but it would be far more sensible if it rose steadily year on year. The money earned from the carbon floor price will pay off public debt rather than being invested in renewables infrastructure. Scandalously, if it does ever come in, the existing nuclear power operators would make windfall gains on their supposedly carbon-free electricity. The Green Investment Bank will start in 2012, but won’t be able to borrow until 2015 and then only if the public debt has gone down. To put this bank/fund into perspective, Barclays paid its investment bankers £3.5bn in bonuses for their work in 2010. Link - http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/osbornes-green-wash-wont-wash/ ===================== So, Conservatives/Carbon & Taxes don't mix

Interesting article.....Tony Abbott is very keen on the UK conservatives.....Lets hope he does not follow there lead!!!

;)

Talking about Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes lets add on to that Costs

Economic modelling shows that Abbotts DIRECT ACTION would cost farmers up to $250 for every $8 they were paid. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/100575

OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue....

It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 4:29pm:

OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue.... It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia...

Q. What did I say about CO2?

A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix!

In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes.

And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time!

It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 5:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:29pm: OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue.... It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia... Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts!

Isn't the Carbon Tax related to Co2???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 5:58pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:29pm: OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue.... It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia... Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts! Isn't the Carbon Tax related to Co2???

Q. What did I say about CO2?

A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix!

In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes.

And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time!

It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 6:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:29pm: OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue.... It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia... Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts! Isn't the Carbon Tax related to Co2??? Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts!

So the Carbon Tax has NOTHING to do with Co2???...Cool so it's only carbon that will be targetted???

And Co2(Carbon Dioxide) won't be affected by the GALP's Tax????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 6:04pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:01pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:29pm: OK come on....even you guys have to admit that the ONLY result from the Carbon Tax is going to be an increase in Government revenue.... It won't have ANY effect on actual Co2 levels in Australia... Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts! Isn't the Carbon Tax related to Co2??? Q. What did I say about CO2? A. I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes mix! In other words, I simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes. And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time! It would really help, if you & some others here, could look at facts, rather than interpreting, from your own fixed thoughts! So the Carbon Tax has NOTHING to do with Co2???...Cool so it's only carbon that will be targetted??? And Co2(Carbon Dioxide) won't be affected by the GALP's Tax????

It seems you can not get past your fixed thinking, just like some others!!!
You know, you could actually try, reading what I say?

The article I posted, was about the UK Conservation government introducing a Carbon floor Price, in order to raise tax.

My only comment was -
So, Conservatives/Carbon & Taxes don't mix

As I have said twice already, I simply questioned whether Conservatives, Carbon & Taxes don't mix, as is currently suggested for the OZ Conservatives, except for Malcom & his followers!

I have simply highlighted that Conservatives in the UK are doing the same as Labor is here, they are raising taxes.

And, when the Conservatives get in here, you can guarantee they will find a "huge black hole", which will necessitate raising taxes & cutting expenditure accross the board, which will be the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time!

It couldn't be any clearer, I've made it clear in numberous posts that  Labours plan is tax related & will not solve any environmental issues, I'm also saying that Politicians on both sides are "severely truth inhibited".

But, if you want to go off on your CO2 tangent, which is completely irrelevant to my post, please be my guest!

Abbott Gave an election speech today, the Gillard Government is about to fall because one of the Independents is crossing the floor to vote for the Opposition.  The collapse of the Gillard regime is immanent. :)

Prevailing wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 6:41pm:

Abbott Gave an election speech today, the Gillard Government is about to fall because one of the Independents is crossing the floor to vote for the Opposition.  The collapse of the Gillard regime is immanent. :)

I think you mean imminent!

And, imminent or not, that has nothing to do with this thread!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 9:29pm:

I think you mean ...

I think you grossly overestimate him if you think he actually means anything.

Soren wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 10:21pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 9:29pm: I think you mean ... I think you grossly overestimate him if you think he actually means anything.

I do mean that you are a DH - is that ok by you? :)

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:14pm:

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X

I'm sure that means someting, to oyu, but could you try it in plain english, so everyone/someone can understand what you are saying.

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 3:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 1st, 2011 at 3:14pm: STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :-[ :-X I'm sure that means someting, to oyu, but could you try it in plain english, so everyone/someone can understand what you are saying.

aY, i CAN'T HEAR YA!

;) ;)