Carbon tax

[Dazz]

.....so, after all of this "debate"....doesn't look like anyone has changed their initial opinion. Didn't think they would. All sides have one thing in common at least, they have been utterly unconvincing to the other side.


Those who vote green still do.

Those who vote Labor still do.

Those who vote Liberal still do.


The only thing to do now is wait for the Pollies to vote on the thing to see if it comes in on July '12 as per the package proposed in July '11. The changes and rangling and jockeying and backroom deals will be thick and heavy between now and when it comes in. Despite what Gillard bravely said yesterday, she has no authority whatsoever to introduce it and certainly no approval from the Australian people.


Then of course we just need to wait for the next Federal election to see if it stays in or gets turfed out....cos no Australian has had a say in any of this yet. Both major parties went to the last election promising not to introduce this toxic tax - for very good reason.


....I predict an absolute landslide victory for the Libs / Nats coalition and a thorough mandate to scrap the carbon Tax completely. Not change it, not modify it...scrap it completely. I also predict they will have no hesitation whatsoever in dissolving the Senate if the Greens get in their way.


This hung parliament has been disasterous for the nation. I'm thoroughly ashamed, and cannot wait to have my say on this Carbon Tax at the ballot box. Bring it on.

 

[our obsession]

'Wonderful' Herald-Sun editorial wanna-be piece.

Andrew Bolt would be proud.

 

[Aaron Sice]

if this carbon tax gets through, i think i'm done with fighting.

it's the #1 hurdle for Agenda 21 and the UN as a de-facto world government.

i have no doubt that this is upon us and have grave concerns for Australia's future, knowing full well the apathy of the Aussie voter.

maybe this is just the warm up round - you know, test the waters, adjust the sell strategy, and try again.

the only way to ensure lineage survival under such a scheme is to work within it, because once it's here the UN will be a trustee in all Australian Energy Policy.

no energy, no production. it's like Mad Max meets Animatrix meets 1984.

some may think this is an over-reaction, but in all honesty - draw a timeline from 1992 to here. if you don't come up with the same conclusion i do, then i'd love to see your research.

 

[HiEquity]

if this carbon tax gets through, i think i'm done with fighting.

it's the #1 hurdle for Agenda 21 and the UN as a de-facto world government.

i have no doubt that this is upon us and have grave concerns for Australia's future, knowing full well the apathy of the Aussie voter.

maybe this is just the warm up round - you know, test the waters, adjust the sell strategy, and try again.

the only way to ensure lineage survival under such a scheme is to work within it, because once it's here the UN will be a trustee in all Australian Energy Policy.

no energy, no production. it's like Mad Max meets Animatrix meets 1984.

some may think this is an over-reaction, but in all honesty - draw a timeline from 1992 to here. if you don't come up with the same conclusion i do, then i'd love to see your research.

Aaron, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about???

 

[Dan_p]

What are you on HiEquity. It's just the first step of Labor to increase the tax amounts. For now they have increased the threshhold to $18200, and the 15% rate to 19%, and 30% to 33%. I will guarantee you that their next move will be increasing the other, high income, tax rates up. The Labor magic and light shows has not got you thinking long term.

Can I ask where you got this information from? I have had a look around and cannot seem to find it.

This would explain why I will be tax exempt for the first $18 but still only end up $3 in front.

 

[StefanA]

Professor Graham Farquhar, ANU, Climate Change Institute, is Australia's premier carbon scientist. He was principal scientific adviser to Senator Hill at the Kyoto Protocol formative meeting in 1997. He is quoted in today's Australian as saying "The aim of the carbon tax is to reduce Australian emissions by five per cent. ----- If we are successful and ALL the countries OF THE WORLD reduce their emissions to 5% below what they would have been, then the (man induced) climate that we would otherwise have seen in 2031, WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL 2032"!

 

[Dan_p]

Professor Graham Farquhar, ANU, Climate Change Institute, is Australia's premier carbon scientist. He was principal scientific adviser to Senator Hill at the Kyoto Protocol formative meeting in 1997. He is quoted in today's Australian as saying "The aim of the carbon tax is to reduce Australian emissions by five per cent. ----- If we are successful and ALL the countries OF THE WORLD reduce their emissions to 5% below what they would have been, then the (man induced) climate that we would otherwise have seen in 2031, WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL 2032"!

I believe in climate change.

It has never been stationary

 

[topcropper]

.....
This hung parliament has been disasterous for the nation. I'm thoroughly ashamed, and cannot wait to have my say on this Carbon Tax at the ballot box. Bring it on.

It's getting nasty in this electorate. The front page of the local rag had Windsors wife making a plea for their kids to be left out of it.

http://www.northerndailyleader.com....its-back-leave-my-kids-out-of-it/2220936.aspx

I've got no idea what the hell Windsor was thinking when he went with labor, but now that his electorate, full of farmers, miners, truckies, tradies, self employed etc, has turned against him, he's just a zombie, with no choice but to side with labor and the greens. He knows if he goes against them, it will be a new election and he will be humilliated with a massive loss.

Even though agriculture was left out, farmers will be hit with tens of thousands in extra energy, transport and fertilizer costs. Thank goodness agriculture was left out is all I can say.

Everyone is just dumbfounded how this is happening. And embarrased, or I am anyway.


See ya's.

 

[NedKelly]

It's getting nasty in this electorate. The front page of the local rag had Windsors wife making a plea for their kids to be left out of it.

Poor kids, having a ******** like Tony Windsor for a father.

 

[bluestorm]

I've got no idea what the hell Windsor was thinking when he went with labor, but now that his electorate, full of farmers, miners, truckies, tradies, self employed etc, has turned against him, he's just a zombie, with no choice but to side with labor and the greens.

Deserves all he gets from the electrate for his treason.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Aaron, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about???

Agenda 21. Frames the outline, I missed it earlier but have been looking for it for a while.

 

[HiEquity]

I predict this will go the same way as Medicare. The Libs will oppose it vehemently at the time and attempt to make all sorts of political mileage out of it, all the while knowing that it is actually a pretty good idea. After all, every economist in the country, who isn't on the far right wing of the political landscape, has thought just that for some time.

Then twenty years later, no doubt they'll again quietly slip it into their policy platform and hope that everyone forgets they were ever against it. Or seek to remind people how John Howard was actually for it first... in the same way they're trying to get people to forget that now.

But in the meantime Mr Abbott would have us believe all those economists are just addicted to the "allure of the market". So instead we have a Liberal party openly attacking a market mechanism in public policy and advocating govt pick winners instead. After all, the Libs are all for "govt knows best", aren't they? It's quite extraordinary how their "direct action" plan has panned out... and incredibly disappointing for those of us who believe in free markets.

 

[Francesco]

I appreciate the input of forumers, especially the line of arguement of Aaron, Bluestorm and VB.

It seems the CT has very little impact on changing the inevitability of climate change for the next decade. Yet making some change in the right direction is necessary but to be effective needs to be in concert with the big polluters overseas. Otherwise, the scale of change on carbon polluters here has disproportionately high financial impact domestically with practically futile global outcome.

There are good points in the CT package with the highlight of the top 500 polluters and assistance package to these affected industries to restructure. The funding of research and innovation of alternative technologies is a good thing to position Australia to face the future environment. And investments in domestic programs to offset carbon is a good thing.

Some questions I would like answers to are:

Can the govt show that the taxes on the 500 polluters will not push these companies offshore and damage the future prosperity of this country? What are the overseas competitor companies likely to do? If you don't, you have scant regard for governing the wellbeing of your citizens besides welfare payments and tax to fund it.

Are there really no other domestic solutions but to pay billion dollars to other countries and buy carbon credit offsets to make up for the expected under-achievement of carbon saving? What about options for govt to plant trees on crown lands, islands, desert? What number of trees do you need per capita and what policies do you need to achieve this?

A reason the govt thinks CT is necessary is because it wants to have global standing, 'to keep up with the Jones' globally. If so, why are imports and our foreign policies apparently spared from this CT exercise? Let's not be hypocrites and tax local polluters on the climate, but allow foreign polluters immunity, which defeats the purpose of the CT. I am aware of failed efforts in Kyoto. Surely there are other ways? For example, bilateral with Brazil and Canada, seeing we have economic similarities. Let's use our foreign aids to reflect the CT priorities, ie reduce over-logging, deforestation by fire, etc.

Seeing that under CT, Australia will yield little impact on the global climate change (ANU professor's assessment mentioned earlier in someone's posting), is there really no other strategies than a tax approach to the climate change issue? I am slow on this issue and do not know Coalition policies but want to approach the issue afresh. What are Australia's strengths and weaknesses? One of our main strength and wealth is our mineral sector. One of our weakness is our relative small population. It seems the CT is a weak strategic approach to the global climate change issue, if we attempt to use change in our small population to try to impact global pollution, while at the same time damaging our core interest. Wouldn't it be better for Australia to contribute to the global issue by massive investments in research and innovations in alternative energy sources? We already have some investments on alternative energy research pilots but we need to scale this up dramatically to take it as a global challenge for all energy aspects including car fuel and to address the environments of the large polluters overseas.


I am not pushing a Coaliton line as I have already admitted I am asking these questions with a genuine desire to engage the issues behind CT.

 

[bluestorm]

I predict this will go the same way as Medicare. The Libs will oppose it vehemently at the time and attempt to make all sorts of political mileage out of it, all the while knowing that it is actually a pretty good idea. After all, every economist in the country, who isn't on the far right wing of the political landscape, has thought just that for some time.

It's nothing like Medicare. Medicare was based on a need to provide medical services to all Australians. Based on REAL and FACTUAL information.
The Carbon Tax is based on bogus "Global Warming" hysteria. The planet has started to COOL now. I'm happy to come back here in 2018-2020 HiEquity when the cooling trend is really clear and undeniable. I'm sure then there will be a lot of "Global Warming" alarmist that will say that they were not part of the silly crowd that believed in the warming hysteric.

 

[locko24]

It's nothing like Medicare. Medicare was based on a need to provide medical services to all Australians. Based on REAL and FACTUAL information.
The Carbon Tax is based on bogus "Global Warming" hysteria. The planet has started to COOL now. I'm happy to come back here in 2018-2020 HiEquity when the cooling trend is really clear and undeniable. I'm sure then there will be a lot of "Global Warming" alarmist that will say that they were not part of the silly crowd that believed in the warming hysteric.

Then there will be a tax on not producing enough carbon!

Does the carbon tax apply to imports? How can this be possible as we have no idea how these products were produced? If not, our manufacturing industry was already under pressure - this tax will cause it to die a most painfull death imo!!

 

[evand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQd_DlkdQ1w&feature=player_embedded

 

[lizzie]

I am not pushing a Coaliton line as I have already admitted I am asking these questions with a genuine desire to engage the issues behind CT.

great post Francesco - and something many of us are trying to say, but not as successfully.

 

[dan c]

Deserves all he gets from the electrate for his treason.

Your hysteria amuses me. The good people of his electorate had the opportunity to vote for the National Party candidate, and they chose not to.

Of course, they may choose to at the next election...

But I hope you are joking when you call his decision 'treason'. Let's calm down a bit, people.

 

[bluestorm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQd_DlkdQ1w&feature=player_embedded

So what's your point evand. Why provide a link to government advertising for the Carbon Tax. If you believe government costings then good on you. To-date Labor has been abysmal with their accuracy on any costings on virtually every policy, and have wasted billions in the process.
Tell me, is this costing as accurate as their costing was on the Solar Rebates Scheme??, which with cost blowouts had to be wound back.

Anyway, I'll let you greenies panic about "Global Warming". But don't come back to me in 5yrs when a large portion of the population are feeling the financial pain, and tell me how heartless I am for laughing at their pain cause they wanted Labor and Green.

 

[lizzie]

So instead of passing money back and forth you intend to.... pass money back and forth!

Yes - but to a lesser degree and you remove the voting consumer from the process. Then it becomes not a policitical passing of money to voters, but a genuine desire for efficiency.

As for a solar powered steel mill - solar powered electricity cannot produce the large volumes of massively high temperatures required in the process ... unlike burning quality coal.

Same as electric batteries would struggle to power a prime mover or combine harvester.

It's not a case of supplying more power/batteries. The solar/wind power just doesn't supply enough immediate power/heat for the process to occur.