Carbon Trading: on in Australia, off in New Hampshire

The contrast between new R. governors doing what they promised, and Gillard, are beyond stark. A leftist green promise-keeper is apparently an oxymoron.

P.S. It won’t last. The consequences will be so severe for Australia it will have to back off. Again,
Stein’s Law: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

The world is filled with nicely dressed idiots, masquerading as leaders.

This is what happens when you let the greens punch well above their weight. The government is so tenuous that it gets pulled and pushed every which way and cannot show leadership.
Bad government makes bad decisions. Well done Labour and green voters I hope you enjoy paying your electricity bills.

I notice that ring Ms.Gillard is wearing on her middle finger.
It only needs a little graphite…. “The Carbon Screw”
B-endover, Australia.

Ill take my last statement back now.. apprently ONLY 30% of Australians believe in AGW
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44426.html
what a farce this cannot possibly get through

Relatively few Australians read blogs such as this and rely for their information on the Australian Broadcasting Commission which is very very much in the alarmist and camp as is the Fairfax press, publishers of the major papers the Sydney Morning Herald and The Melbourne Age. There is little critical comment in the MSM on alarmist views and a rational discussion of the science of climate change has not been held in Australia. I don’t think most Australians are aware that the temperature readings from surface stations, which are the bedrock data, are massaged every now and then. It is very unclear to me and possibly to others what the true temperature reading are. Prime Minister Gillard has definitely gone back on her promise of August 6th 2010, prior to the elections, that her government would not put a price on carbon. Whether and how Australians will react to this volte face remains to be seen

Some of Ms. Gillard’s (et al) statements:
“I’m determined to price carbon,” she told reporters.
“History teaches us that the countries and the economies who prosper at times of historic change are those who get in and shape and manage the changes.”
“The time is right and the time is now.”
Putting a price on carbon was the most efficient way to cut carbon pollution, she said.
“If you put a price on something – people will use less of it.”
“The hard-wired mechanism here is to move to cap and trade,” Ms Gillard said.
Ms Gillard said the carbon price set by the government would be fair.
“Every cent raised from pricing carbon will go to assisting households, helping businesses manage the transition and funding climate change programs,” she said.
“And the government will always support those who are in need of assistance with cost of living pressures.”
Carbon pollution threatened Australia’s future prosperity, Ms Gillard said.
“We need to ensure that Australia has a low-pollution economy for the future – we can’t afford to be left behind.”
Ms Gillard said she wouldn’t back down…
“(But) can I make it very clear that in the debate that will ensue I am not intending to take a backwards step.
“We are a confident nation and we are good at change. We’ve proved it in the past.”
Ms Gillard said more work needed to be done on the details of industry assistance and household compensation.
Matters of compensation would be worked through with the multi-party climate change committee.
“What we want to do is compensate those people who are suffering the outcome of long term carbon pollution of the atmosphere.”
Mr Windsor (another govt. leader) said he believed something should be done about climate change globally and indicated his vote would be influenced by what action was being taken outside Australia.
But first the government would examine the “international environment”.
Ms Gillard promised during the 2010 election that she would not introduce a carbon tax. Asked whether the ETS was a breach of that promise, Ms Gillard said: “This is the parliament the Australian people voted for – you are seeing it on display in front of you. “And we have to get on with the job of pricing carbon.”
Ms Gillard said she intended to win the political debate on climate change.
“The reality is, however this was designed, Tony Abbott would be out there trying to raise fear about it,” she said.
“The minute I say the two words ‘climate change’ he would say ‘great big new tax on everything’.”
The government wants a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions but while Senator Brown maintained the Greens preferred a cut of 25 per cent, he didn’t rule out the possibility of a compromise.
“There is no doubt all members on this committee have this nation’s future wellbeing at the forefront in trying to decide on those very hard issues,” he said.
Mr Combet said the future shape of the scheme could depend on what happens at international negotiations.
The review of the scheme 12 months before the start of an ETS with a flexible price would consider issues such as whether Australia had entered into binding international agreements on emissions.
“At that point in time we would set the (emissions) target to be achieved by 2020,” he said.
ME THINKS FOLLY IS IN MOTION DOWN UNDER.

Ultimately a fuel tax is a good thing I think in this day and age… it’ll help persuade people to choose more efficient products. Look at the EU and the huge tax they pay for petrol an as example, their cars as a result are smaller and more efficient, they’re really well placed for post peak oil prices. America on the other hand ! … boy are you guys in trouble, with your huge SVUs and houses, oil has already creeped back to around $100 dollars. You guys are going to be paying through the nose for oil, you’re already paying huge amounts for oil imports.
Check out this story http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7465
What do you think is going to happen when Sudi demand closes in on their total production as it’s been closing at an ever greater rate? Yes that’s right ultimately their exports will drop to zero and they’ll horde oil for future generations. Hate to see what will happen to the American economy when oil hits $200 a barrel – but i dare say it’s not going to be pretty

It should be mentioned that the Carbon Tax is being introduced not out of concern for ‘carbon pollution’, which is the government’s take, but 1- to increase revenue for the state and 2- to appease the Greens, who hold the balance of power in both houses of parliament.
As a political measure it became absolutely necessary ‘to do something’ after the previous PM, Kevin Rudd, turned the CAGW issue into a moral crusade. Rudd thought that an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) would drive a wedge within the rival political party, the conservative Liberal/National coalition. He was proven right, and the coalition almost tore itself apart.
Then, climategate happened, and within days the Liberals changed their leader, replacing a CAGW cultist with a skeptic by a smallest of margins. And when Copenhagen failed, the Labor government found itself along side the Greens pursuing a climate crusade that was becoming increasingly unpopular in opinion polls.
In March, 2010, Kevin Rudd, still the Prime Minister, was forced to drop the ETS by his own party. This meant that not only Labor alienated many people (including me) with the ETS six months earlier, but they also began to lose what little support they got from green-minded voters with that moral crusade. As a result the Labor dumped Kevin Rudd, almost lost the following elections while both the Greens and the conservative coalition made huge gains. At the moment, Labor clings to power with the help of a few Green and independent MPs concerned about CAGW.
To re-state it briefly, as far as Labor is concerned, the issue of climate change is loser among the voting public, but a winner within the current make up of the parliament.
Incidentally, although I am a climate skeptic, I do support the carbon tax proposed by the government. I do so for political reasons. I admire Australian social system, and I do support a progressive taxation system that supports a welfare state. I believe the downtrodden ought to be looked after by the government instead of being abandoned to the goodwill of the super rich people, or the super-rich churches that demand a piece of your soul in exchange for a bowl soup. Yes, I’d rather live in Australia than in America.

I am deeply embarrassed to be an Australian.