“Carbon Sunday” – The madness in Australia over the Carbon Tax

From ABC News

They are calling it “Carbon Sunday”.

This is a collection of links and excerpts regarding PM Julia Gillard’s speech announcing the tax. In a nutshell, from what I can see, the majority of Australians are pissed, and she’s toast, partly because she lied about it before taking office, partly due to the fact it is being implemented as a deficit from the get-go. Oh and then there’s the fact that it won’t make a bit of difference to the temperature, and will be nullified by China.

Apparently, the way it is structured, it looks “Almost bordering on a bribe” (-Andrew Bolt, see his interview with Lindzen below) .

You can download the new climate policy here (PDF).

=============================================================

Carbon tax backlash in national plebiscite hosted by News Ltd websites | Courier Mail
ANGRY Australians have vowed to vote Prime Minister Julia Gillard from office at the next election after the controversial carbon tax announcement.

Scores of voters rejected the plan soon after details of the $24.5 billion package to tackle climate change were revealed, with more than 80 per cent who voted in a national online poll saying Australia shouldn’t have a carbon tax.



“They’re calling it ‘Carbon Sunday’ but I like to refer to today as ‘Suicide Sunday’ for a PM and three independents,” one reader wrote.

Just eight per cent of voters said they were confident it wouldn’t affect their hip pocket.

An anti-carbon tax group said its website crashed after being overwhelmed with people trying to sign up to a campaign rejecting the tax.

The organisers of the site, no-carbon-tax.org, said the site crashed because of the “sheer numbers of people signing up.”

In the Queensland polls hosted by couriermail.com.au, about 7000 readers voted on four questions, with about 90 per cent believing we should not have a carbon tax, over 60 per cent saying climate change was a myth, and 75 per cent saying they were now more likely to vote for the Coalition.

===============================

From Andrew Bolt | Herald Sun

My editorial on the carbon tax fraud. I then interview Professor Richard Lindzen, who says Gillard’s tax wouldn’t work, even if man really was warming the globe. Which he doubts.

Carbon Sunday

Andrew Bolt – Sunday, July 10, 11 (11:36 am)

Vent here while venting is still legal.

The Climate Change Committee deal here.

UPDATE

Some initial, quick thoughts:

- $4.3 billion over four years is going to be spent above what the tax raises to buy off the public with tax cuts and handouts. That’s one wild way to sell a tax, spending more than it raises.

- the compensation must soon run out if the Government doesn’t want to broke. The deal says that after three years, companies can buy offsets overseas for up to half their emissions. This means that costs here will rise, but the revenue to compensate for these rises is sent overseas.

- The Government claims this package will reduce emissions by 160 millions tonnes by 2020. But the immediate tax and spending levels cannot do that. This target can be achieved only with a dramatic raising of the tax. No figure is given for how much of our emissions will be cut by the tax as it.

- The Government refuses to nominate employment effects on the specific industries involved.

- No figure is given for what effect this will have on the world’s temperature.

- Julia Gillard cites in her support Margaret Thatcher, who indeed did warn in 1988 that we should worry about global warming. What Gillard fails to add was that by 2002, Thatcher had developed second thoughts about the alarmists, writing that global warming “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism”.

- The Government is spending $2.7 billion extra over the next financial year alone – before the tax even gets imposed – to buy support throught tax cuts and handouts.

- It’s a magic tax:

Cost increases: <a title=”Households to see average cost increases of $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of $10.10 a week on average.Households to see average cost increases of $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of $10.10 a week on average.

- Gillard announces also she’ll buy out a 2000 Megawatt power station over the next decade at a price not revealed. That’s billions to actually reduce our power supplies, not increase them.

===========================================================

Australian Climate Madness Blog:

Just to put all this nonsense in perspective, the policy is due to reduce Australia’s emissions by 160 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020. Sounds impressive right? Well, China’s emissions rose in just one year by 750 million tonnes, nearly five times Australia’s planned reduction by 2020 – in just one year. Climate Madness.

=============================================================

Gillard’s tax on “carbon pollution”: the facts « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet.

==============================================================

Many Australians to be better off under tax deal: Gillard | The Australian

According to a recent Newspoll, just 30 per cent of people support the tax.

“The presumption in the Newspoll that the majority of Australians don’t want action on climate change will change,” Senator Brown told reporters in Brisbane yesterday.

Ms Gillard warned the government would not be cowed by opposition to the tax and accused the Coalition of “lies and distortion” and “attacks on our economists and scientists.

“After all that, I simply say to our opponents: is that the best you can do,” she said.

“Because if you think that’s enough to knock us off course, you’ve got another think coming.”

==============================================================

Climate change: Gillard or Abbott | thetelegraph.com.au

[Piers Akerman] The carbon dioxide tax has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with raising an extra $11 billion in revenue.

The tax is not a reform, it is economic suicide.

==============================================================

READ the full text of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s address to the nation following the carbon tax plan:

I WANT to talk to you tonight about why the Government is putting a price on carbon and what this means for you.

The decisions I announced today mean:

AROUND five hundred big polluters will pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere.

BY 2020 this will cut carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes a year.

AND because some businesses will put prices up, there will be tax cuts, increased pensions and increased family payments.

We have had a long debate about climate change in this country.

Most Australians now agree our climate is changing, this is caused by carbon pollution, this has harmful effects on our environment and on the economy – and the Government should act.

Economists and experts agree that the best way is to make polluters pay by putting a price on carbon.

The first Australian Government to announce a plan for a carbon price was John Howard’s back in 2007.

A lot has happened since then; the debate has been difficult and divisive.

And no government – no political party or leader – can claim to have got everything right during this time.

But we have now had the debate, 2011 is the year we decide that as a nation we want a clean energy future.

Now is the time to move from words to deeds.

That’s why I announced today how Australia’s carbon price will work.

From 1 July next year, big polluters will pay $23 for every tonne of carbon they put into our atmosphere.

They now know how much they will pay unless they cut their pollution.

And they can start planning to cut pollution now.

By 2020 our carbon price will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year.

That’s the equivalent of taking forty five million cars off the road.

Some of the cost paid by big polluters will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy.

The price impact will be modest but I know family budgets are always tight.

So I have decided most of the money raised from the carbon price will be used to fund tax cuts, pension increases and higher family payments.

These will be permanent, matching the carbon price over time.

Not everyone will be financially better off – there is no money tree. The budget has to add up. But I want people who need help most to get the help they need.

That’s why 9 in 10 households will get a combination of tax cuts and payment increases.

For almost six million households this will fully meet your average extra costs.

And of these, four million Australian households – including every older Australian who relies solely on the pension – will get a “buffer” for your budget, with the extra payments being 20 per cent higher than your average extra costs.

When you have some time, you should have a look at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website.

It’ll help you find out what you’re entitled to.

And it will link you to ideas for how to cut power bills and cut pollution without cutting back on life’s essentials.

I also understand that there is nothing more important to families than having a job.

So I have decided we will take special measures to support jobs and keep Australia competitive internationally. And some of the money paid by polluters will also fund billions of dollars of investments in clean technologies like solar, wind and geothermal.

All up, the carbon price will support $100 billion worth of investment in renewables in the next forty years.

Putting a price on carbon is a big change for our country.

I know we can do it together.

Our economy is the envy of the world.

We have world-leading renewable technology, a coal industry determined to cut pollution among the world’s richest reserves of natural gas.

And we are a confident, creative people.

I see a great clean energy future for our great country.

I know we can get there together.

================================================================

Now look at the polling from the Herald Sun:

You can weigh in here

Finally, keep your eye on the prize.

h/t to Tom Nelson for collecting many of these

===============================================================

UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. points out the absurdity of a basic claim.

Australia has released its much awaited carbon tax proposal (here in PDF).  I am just now browsing through it.  This analogy in the document strikes me as particularly unfortunate:

The Government has committed to reduce carbon pollution by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020 irrespective of what other countries do, and by up to 15 or 25 per cent depending on the scale of global action.

Meeting the 5 per cent target will require abatement of at least 159 Mt CO2-e, or 23 per cent, in 2020 (Figure 2.4).1 This is equivalent to taking over 45 million cars off the road by 2020.

Why do I say an unfortunate analogy?

Well, Australia has only about 12 million cars (and 16 million total vehicles), so using a reduction of 45 million cars “off the road” to illustrate the unilateral emissions reduction goal simply illustrates the impossibility of the task.

===============================================================

This new policy was of such national importance that Gillard had to pre-empt regular TV programming on Sunday to announce it….and they couldn’t even get the basic math right.

 

About these ads

124 thoughts on ““Carbon Sunday” – The madness in Australia over the Carbon Tax

  1. Hm. Looks as if the Australian people are having themselves an Obamacare-plus kind of “Tea Party” moment.

    Speed the plow.

  2. This inovating inovation is an excellent example of post normal economic, political and climatolo-gollyical non-science at its best.

  3. Can these people (Julia and the Greens ) even rub 2 neurons together? Do they have 2 neurons amongst them?

  4. I can’t even gloat about the fools in the Labor Party committing political suicide. When one of the two major parties goes this bad, it’s bad for democracy. Democracy needs a choice between two reasonable alternatives. I hope they get thrown out in a landslide then re-think their whole socialist radical green agenda, then become a reasonable alternative.

  5. The amount of “climate math” calculated reduction in temperature is well within the average historical weather pattern variations for all the climates in Australia. Meaning, there will be no way to tell if the tax actually does what it implies it can do, which is to “repair” Australia’s climate.

  6. Dr. Denis Rancourt interviewed Prof. Lindzen for almost an hour a couple of days ago where he goes into more detail:

    http://trainradio.blogspot.com/

    Last week – at the same site – Rancourt interviewed climate modeller Prof. Pierrehumbert, who’s now modelling the climate of undiscovered planets.

  7. The Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard is misleading her country with her vocabulary: From 1 July next year, big polluters will pay $23 for every tonne of carbon they put into our atmosphere.
    The meaning of ‘to pollute’ is ‘to destroy the purity of’. CO2 is a basic element for life and is very useful in agriculture, soft drinks, etc. It is certainly not a pollutant. Pollutants are e.g. NOx (nitrous oxides), fine dust, heavy metals… We have to maintain a clear distinction between both concepts.
    An erudite political leader who deliberately confuses the people with her vocabulary is very suspicious. We know other leaders in history who also dared to give a wrong meaning to certain concepts. Beware of such leaders!

  8. A carbon tax that thy admit will have no effect on emissions. The churn of money is enormous. They promise pensioners they will receive $10.10 per week but estimate rising costs to be $9.90. That is before the legislated increases in the tax. Many pensioners already forgo heating in winter and cooling in summer to cut electricity expenses.
    2ndly, they are promising a huge investment in renewable energy. It is a proven failure, much like the above reasoning.
    3rdly, they are estimating that by the time an ETS starts, Australian companies will have to purchase 50% of their permits overseas. In other words, they are handing our future over to scammers. They predicate their modeling on the imaginary position that the whole world will be trading. It has not penetrated their ivory tower yet that the CCX failed, that the EU has been ripped off amazingly badly, with zero effect on emissions and that various states in USA are moving out of failed schemes.

  9. There’s always been enough people that would fall for it, believe it….
    ….that there is big money and power in it

    We used to call them witch doctors, shaman, Aztec priests, etc
    … all of the “science” says, if you don’t throw a virgin in the fire, there will never be rain again

    Things haven’t changed much….

  10. In regards to Thatcher’s former support for believing in “global warming” which Gillard now is citing.
    That had more to do with finding an excuse to smash the coal mining unions in the UK.
    It’s interesting that a “Labor” party leader has resorted to using a thatcherite excuse also.

    At the recent New South Wales state election, The Labor Party was decimated in all the coal mining areas of NSW (like Newcastle), a traditional working class labor party electorate.

    Gillard will be very lucky to survive over the next few months, as there is a very strong rebellion brewing in the union movement and from Labor MPs in working class electorates.

  11. What politicians count on is the electorate having a short memory. Having lied to you to get into office, the Prime Minister of Australia is now laughing at the citizens she tricked — If you are dumb enough to vote for me Australia, you deserve exactly what you get. I’ll do whatever I want and there is nothing you can do about it. In 4 years you will have forgotten and vote me back in. In the meanwhile I will have 4 years to spend your money and tell you over and over again how much you enjoy it. If I repeat it enough, eventually you will believe it.

  12. Andrew Bolt?! Nice to see you pick a reasonable and unbiased journalist for your perceptions about Australia!

    And you claim you’re a skeptic and a scientist?

    Why don’t you go and read the Opposition Coalition policy platform where you will see that they claim to be just as faithful believers in the need to act on AGW as the Labor Government. The difference is, the Coalition wants to introduce a non-market based, voluntary mechanism so that they have a vehicle for opposing the only sensible policy and the one that was their own under Howard and Turnbull until the party was hijacked by the scientific illiterati. This irony is the biggest elephant in the room.

    Of course, Andrew Bolt just ignores this elephant – as do you. I’d call that denial.

  13. Right about now, I am glad I don’t live in Australia . . . . When GW Bush (in company . . . as It was a group effort) gave the US economic system that final push over the cliff called “it’s broke now”! . . . . There was no care for the rest of the “community” . . . as long as they got “theirs” and “they” got to keep it . . .

    Philisophically, the income tax was the original “claw back” for greed! So, it didn’t matter if:
    ” . . . AND because some businesses will put prices up, there will be . . . ” (as the article states)!

    If you have a huge profit margin the government is/was very fortunate to have such generous support so that they could provide for the general welfare of the society! It was/is not a perfect system but it is much better than a regressive system . . .

    When it comes to greed . . . it does not matter what the system is . . . it can be “gamed” . . .

    PS. Oh yes there is a money tree . . . . it’ called your banking system . . . and if it is not used properly, it too can find that cliff called “it’s broke now”! As we all know now . . .

  14. Madness is right. From a coalition government that barely made it into office. At least we’ll now find out what most people really think about climate change and what causes it.
    Probably the worst thing about all the so-called “Carbon Pollution” is it takes away from all the very real pollution around the place. In Western Australia we’ve had some serious lead pollution incidents leading to elevated blood lead levels in children living in what ought to be an almost pristine coastal town. If we can’t regulate something as clearly toxic as lead, perhaps the proponents of this tax can tell me what chance there is of regulating CO2 when there is obviously going to be a lot more money at stake?

  15. the manner in which JuLIAR speaks, as if we were all 5yr olds and naughty ones at that…
    while mouthing rising seas carbon pollution dying reef.
    the wonderful thing is that when it all falls over as it is,
    we will be able to replay this endlessly to remind us of the foolishness of pschycopathic leaders.
    Debate? NO debate was allowed, you agreed or werent allowed to speak!
    waiting for another few years is NOT an option!
    we need em out NOW!
    before we go broke.,
    the only income doing ok is mining and resources..
    kiss em goodbye. there goes the country.

  16. would seem the Drum is doing its usual, tame quotes by the pro team and NO comments published by anyone else…doubt mine will get the nod either.
    par for course.
    abc= the agw support team

  17. essentially, Gillard bought out the working class with massive tax reform, it was a cunning move.
    Australia, probably much like the U.S. Anthony, is fairly apathetic about government and they respond to their hip pockets predictably. They can be bought and sold because they have no voting principles. Other than that, the alternative to Gillard is Abbott who also lacks a backbone.

    The only consistently principled politician throughout all this, is Bob Brown, like him or not.
    Despite what Bolt says, The logical reason for the rise of The Greens party, is because Labor disenfranchised its voter base and the two majors were chronically over-driven by petty media games and popularity polls. Neither party stood for anything and both were barely distinguishable from each other.
    This is the sorry state of politics in Australia and the reason why The Greens have the balance of power in the senate. This has to be good for one thing, it will promptly cause the Australian political duopoly to reassess its performance.

  18. The most appalling element of the story is largely unknown:
    It turns out that the Labour govt has spent millions in distributing AGW propaganda to the schools, where AGW disaster scnarios are taught as fact. The scaremongering among children has resulted in a measurable spread of fear and anxiety in these helpless victims of what can only be describes as Stalinism.

  19. DeanL:
    What you’re crowing about is the the disgustingly undemocratic ‘climate’ your lot have visited on Australia.

    It’s a measure of their Left wing anti-democratic and authoritarian bent, that it’s now compulsory in Australia for a politician who has any aspirations to high office to say he believes in AGW.

    To do otherwise means certain political death—the ‘execution’ carried out by our disreputable almost 100% Leftist journalists—and that made possible only by their suppression of information on alternative scientific research and views—and anything but the ‘consensus’ line.

    There’s been an almost complete shutdown of information on this issue in our country, because that’s the only way the Left can suck in enough voters to even scrape across the line.

    And now this week, we had a Labor front organisation [ to which you possibly belong], threatening
    various industries with boycotts should they refuse to support the government’s carbon dioxide tax.

    The Howard policy , as you would know, was only to be introduced in the event of a global policy coming out of Copenhagen.

  20. She’s mad. Out of touch with reality to such an abysmal degree as to be hard to read. The rhetoric is so hollow and contrived as to be essentially meaningless.

    “It’ll help you find out what you’re entitled to.”
    Not least, some kind of explanation.

    “And it will link you to ideas for how to cut power bills and cut pollution without cutting back on life’s essentials.”
    Yeah, like cutting the trunk wire into your house.

    “I also understand that there is nothing more important to families than having a job.”
    You do, Jewels? You understand SQUAT.

    I don’t pray. But for the land down under.

  21. Dean L
    The elephant is not in power.Bob Brown and Gillard are.If she had called an election then the people had a clear choice between hers and Abbott’s policies.
    Care to point out where Andrew Bolt is wrong in what he says?
    I don’t see any perceptions of Australia in the Bolt piece Anthony quotes.
    It is a shame that Abbott feels the need to appease the alarmists,all he had to say was that he’d wait until China and India acted.

  22. DeanL says on July 10, 2011 at 6:48 am

    Andrew Bolt?! Nice to see you pick a …

    Can you in any way challenge the content of the video linked in the head of this thread?

    .

  23. Australia is fortunate in having a parliamentary system where a truly bad party can be removed from power fairly fast. Can’t do that in America.

    The real question is whether the opposition parties will actually do the opposite after they gain the majority, or will pull the same lie as Gillard. If they lie, tyranny is complete. Nowhere to turn.

  24. Gillard has lied enough. Australia- to the streets and get the banners out. Get Her Out Of Power. Vote Her Away.

    It is always said that people get the government that they deserve. Australia does not deserve Gillard.

    A word to Ms. Gillard– ignorance is not an excuse for stupidity.

  25. CarbonCarbon Dioxide but it does seem that politicians are confused about this. Does Joolya mean $23 per tonne of Carbon or $23 per tonne of Carbon Dioxide?

  26. DeanL is todays paid Greens troll / idiot. And if your following this stuff today from Julia Foolra you will be aware its like watching the Zepplin go down. we all knew it was a matter of time. the science was all wrong.

  27. It’s not so bad. Though we can no longer afford to burn coal, we still make money selling mountains of coal – much of it gouged from prime agricultural land – to China and other countries. Wonder what they do with it all? Cynics claim they are only buying our coal to burn it. As if! And should that coal catch fire by accident in some Chinese factory, it would be in their atmosphere, not ours…right?

    Even if all this talk about Aussie coal being exported for combustion is true, we could have a marvellous new slogan for the national crest: BURN GLOBAL, BUT TAX LOCAL.

  28. DeanL says:
    July 10, 2011 at 6:48 am
    The difference is, the Coalition wants to introduce a non-market based, voluntary mechanism so that they have a vehicle for opposing the only sensible policy and the one that was their own under Howard and Turnbull until the party was hijacked by the scientific illiterati. This irony is the biggest elephant in the room.

    Can you explain what you mean? The first of the above two sentences above makes no literal sense.

  29. I’d like to echo DeanL’s point that Bolt is not an unbiased commentator. You should take him with a grain of salt.

    Hardly Carbon Sunday, the carbon tax won’t have nearly the detrimental effect on the country as sensationalist’s like Bolt claim and The Greens will never get to unleash their fanatical anti-democratic principles either. It’s called a compromise, that’s why we have a bicameral parliament with a preferential voting system. Who knows, it might even be a positive outcome. Economies regularly adapt to new markets and its not as if Australians were any more enlightened as a consumer populace before. They have always been driven by corporate advertising and personal gain, like Americans.

    The overwhelming issue is something greater than the carbon tax, it is unprincipled politicians who represent apathetic citizens. It remains to be seen if Gillard is toast next election as she just gave the lower & middle classes a short sighted incentive to vote for her again. Can she keep it up?

  30. Jared says:
    July 10, 2011 at 6:33 am
    Gov’t should force everyone to build comet shelters. Better safe than sorry.

    NO.. Government should pay private companies to built a space fleet to protect us. Just as useless, but it get us some hardware we can use for other things. :-)

  31. I knew before she was even elected that the Fabian Socialist Gillard had the potential to be very dangerous indeed. I don’t think it matters who Australia elects, the orders for the Carbon Tax are coming from higher up and will be implemented sooner or later. Same is true for any western country. There is no choice anymore, it’s all an illusion.

  32. Gillard’s action reminds me of Goethe’s words: “There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.”

    IanM

  33. DeanL: “Nice to see you pick a reasonable and unbiased journalist…”

    There is no such thing. What you are annoyed about is that Bolt is one of the few journalists in Australia who are not spewing out unbiased state subsidized propaganda by the manure truckful.

    99% of the media is pro-AGW and it drives you nuts the other 1% won’t tell you what you want to hear.

  34. I think Andrew Bolt misses the point to describe CO2 merely as ‘plant food’. This description may be suitable for nitrates, phosphates and other fertilisers, but CO2 is much more than that. It is the single gas upon which all life on this earth depends. Every cell in your body contains carbon atoms that have once been part of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. And so does every cell of every thing that has ever lived. We are all carbon-based life-forms.
    The difference between animals and plants is, by definition, that plants can make their own food, whereas animals cannot and have to eat plants or other animals to survive. Plants make their food by a process called photosynthesis, in which CO2 is converted to organic compounds in the presence of sunlight (thanks to chlorophyll in the leaves of plants). All living organisms ultimately depend on this process.
    Organic chemistry is defined as the study of chemicals which contain Carbon; it is the stuff of life! To describe CO2 as merely ‘plant food’ is to decry it, but to describe it as a pollutant is barking mad. It reminds me of a Star Trek episode in which a robot went around destroying planets in order to cleanse them of what it called ‘biological infestations’.
    In pursuing this Global Warming hysteria we have come to a point where words lose their meaning

  35. Yes, it’s such a pity to have people leading and representing our country whom we would be ashamed to be seen with in public, even if they were members of our own family, for fear that they might open their mouths..

  36. mosomoso says ‘Though we can no longer afford to burn coal, we still make money selling mountains of coal – much of it gouged from prime agricultural land – to China and other countries. Wonder what they do with it all?’

    Surely it all goes to landfill – everything else imported by China does!

    Meanwhile, could I just say how pleased we are in the UK to hear about the Wizard new scheme in Oz: you remember what they say – ‘Misery loves company!’

  37. Julia is the repetition machine, spits out the same lines over and over or should I say the same lies over and over so maybe idiots will eventually believe – we need to introduce truth and reinforcement – NO Carbon Dioxide Tax even if the labour getup goon squad tries to drown our protests. Add your voice and make your vote count.

  38. No mention, of course, of any economic fallout from this tax. As if increasing costs will have no impact on sales, hiring etc. What’s it going to cost to determine who should get a “carbon rebate” and who shouldn’t? How many jobs will be lost? How many of those big polluters will go out of business, or just pick up stakes and leave? Don’t worry about any of these things because we’ll have nice green jobs waiting for you, you might have to work two to pay for energy but look on the bright side, it’ll be .0002 degrees cooler by 2020.

  39. Well I take it the Australian government does not watch the news that says the English speaking world has rejected the ways of the left, America is kicking democrats out of office at record rates, Canada andGreat Britain both elect new conservative governments. And now they choose to piss off everyone in the country.

    All of thay is still ignoring their scientific ignorance but one example of overt stupidity is enough for one post.

  40. There has been a literal flood of articles in the Aussie MSM this w/e about the carbon tax. Its rather funny as the tax is short AU$4.2bil after compensation is factored in. Who foots the shortfall Gillard, the “rich”?

    Labor and the Greens are gone come next election. Sadly, damage will be done! Buh by SS Aus…soon to feel that sinking feeling, and there are some who believe Aus is unsinkable. Well I think Gillard believes that too.

  41. Go! Australia Go!
    While the country taxes itself to death, it can continue exporting $50 billion worth of coal per year. Now that is a coherent green policy!

  42. Regarding the fact that Gillard lied about the carbon tax before she took office, I’m not surprised. Obama also lied about a few things before he took office. I think this is the strategy of the left. Lie about unpopular things when running for office and then when you get in, implement them.

    And notice how part of this Australian carbon tax is going to be redistributed back to the low income groups. This has LONG been mentioned in many climate papers and books I have read. They usually mention redistribute wealth both within and among nations. This is the within part. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of their carbon taxes will make it to other nations.

    Here in California, I believe part of our cap-and-trade carbon taxes will be sent to countries with huge forests (under a REDD type scheme).

    http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/073010/notice.pdf

    Doesn’t anybody see what I see here? What I see is that this (AGW) is more about equalizing the economies of the world (lowering developed economies while raising developing countries economies), redistributing wealth within and among nations, control of the world’s natural resources by the UN (or some other supranational agency) and hence by proxy control of the economies of all nations than it is about reducing global warming.

  43. The basic problem with socialism (AKA”Labour”) is their idea that everything comes down to money. “We can solve this (supposed) problem by taking money away from it”. Or, “We can solve this problem by throwing money at it”.

    The basic problem with this line of thinking is that it is always OUR money, and we are quickly running out of it. What will they do then? Probably print some more. That is always their solution.

  44. “Economists and experts agree that the best way is to make polluters pay by putting a price on carbon.”
    ==========================
    In Ontario Canada the largest polluter is Ontario Hydro which supplies electricity for the Province. I wonder if the average voter even knows this as they scream “make polluters pay”.
    My electricity bill is up 18% over last year. A few months back I received a refund – a 10% discount on my hydro bill from the Provincial Government. So they raise rates to pay for a $700 million wind turbine deal and then issue a refund a few months before an election. Hmmm….
    It could be worse. I could live in Australia.
    Although I love that country. Even the rats (and they’re big) have a bounce to their step.

  45. The ‘majority of Australians’ may be ‘pissed off’ about this Anthony, but according to that wonderful organ of record and truthfulness – at least as far as it allows its commenters to say (be displayed), the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14096750 , many think it is a great idea and that Bob Carter is an amateur. They are obviously people who did not watch her video – where she managed to get away with claiming that the one trace gas in our atmosphere that allows for life to exist on this planet is now a pollutant!.

    I despair of my countrymen, especially the people who will happily accept a ‘tax on air’. I hope Gillard gets her come-uppance.

  46. Gee a socialist politician lies and then rams through insane policies that are doomed to failure and which will leave the economy in shambles. She must be an admirer of Obama.

  47. Together with a colleague I ran a thread on ‘the futility of carbon reduction’ . The facts and figures are shown in the link below, together with a useful table as to what temperature reduction each country can achieve and how much it will cost.

    The Australian figures are there, but in the UK’s case we are talking of an expenditure of some £30 billion a year for the next forty years in order to reduce temperatures in total by around 15thousands of a degree Centigrade by 2100.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/

    The trouble is of course that an increasing majority of the world intends to have nothing whatsoever to do with carbon reduction, so the sacrifices that a small number of western countries is making is completely symbolic, but will have a massive consequece for the economy, an individuals finances and for methods of energy production.

    The 50MW wind farms the UK Govt intends to litter our countryside with will make a difference of 10 millionths of a degree Centigrade.

    The West has truly gone mad and our competitors and enemies must be rubbing their eyes in disbelief.

    tonyb

  48. There is one thing about your welsh wizard, she happy to lie to your face when most politicians lie behind their hands.

  49. A betrayal of the first magnitude!
    The Australian Government and Labor party is now on a deathwatch, due to self-inflicted wounds!
    Watch peoples standard of living nosedive. Watch industry and manufacturing flee this poor broken country thanks to the lunatics running the country.

    PM JULIAR (THERE WON’T BE A CARBON TAX) Gillard may ram is hateful CO2 ETS/tax through but is spells the end of the Labor government, the slimy backstabbing independents and the greens in the next election. Maybe they can join the threatened CO2 climate destroying Camels in the lonely outback. Because they won’t see anymore political power or deserve trust for the following 20 years after that, if their lucky.

  50. From the sounds of it, I’d say that PM Julia Gillard is going to go from making history to becoming history.

  51. Carl Chapman says:
    July 10, 2011 at 6:04 am

    “I can’t even gloat about the fools in the Labor Party committing political suicide. When one of the two major parties goes this bad, it’s bad for democracy.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment here. Back in November 2009 when I first became involved with the AGW issue due to Climategate – well – I went a little bit crazy shall we say. I wrote to everyone – friends, family, anyone who had ever sent me a politically themed email, it was quite a list. I wrote a letter. In that letter I outlined the argument that should CAGW be backed by a candidate, or a party, or a sitting member of government particularly the executive, eventually it would not be good for said candidate/leader/government member.

    Why? I had checked out the claims; read some papers on the weak conjecture that is AGW. Pretty much figured out that if Mankind’s CO2 is doing anything at all, it isn’t much…maybe minutely warming the frozen wastelands on northern Canada and Siberia at night-time; but so far said warming is so minute it could just be “noise” and add that to the fact that our ability to measure AGW itself is in constant dispute.

    So we have what is most probably a non-problem in AGW. Now let’s have a couple of mild summers and wet, cool winters. Eventually the world populace figures out that AGW is a non-problem. And they figure out that quite possibly some unscrupulous types have been gaming it and scamming it. Pseudo-scientists/politicians/journalists/bureaucrats. And public anger builds into public rage.

    Now all it takes is a charismatic leader to stand up and rail against AGW. Said leader may actually be either incompetent or evil, but gets elected simply by capitalizing on public rage over a single issue. Has this ever happened? Look at modern American history and the public rage over Nixon and rage against the republican party after the Watergate scandal. Gerald Ford was an excellent president IMO but Carter (a bumbling nincompoop IMO) beat him at the polls. At least Carter wasn’t evil; but he could have been.

    Much disagreement can be mustered against my example; my point is that politicians can, and do make much hay by over-emotionalizing issues; they cleverly use an issue by, in a sense, projecting the issue though a prism backwards to cast their opponent an unfavorable light.

    Here’s a made up thought experiment to illustrate my point: “You can’t trust my opponent on fisheries; the fool bought in hook-line-and sinker on AGW, and is incompetent to evaluate scientific data.” Perhaps the politician being attacked was simply going along with the party-line back then, is an ex-fisherman and knows exactly what he is talking about when it comes to fishing; would make an excellent (fill-in-the-blank for political position) but loses the election to a blustering idiot – because said blustering idiot had the simple virtue of not buying into AGW (or claiming they didn’t.) And, the electorate gets another buffoon for a leader.

  52. The Btitish and Australian Labour parties have many things in common, such as: i) the inability to listen to reason, and ii) insisting on implementing populist policies which inevitably cause huge and unnecessary economic damage.

    This can all be summed up by the concept of asking the question: “Does it work in theory?”, while ignoring the far more important question of: “Will it work in practice?”. Neither Labour Party ever asks the latter question.

    It is self-evident that this is a really goofy policy, which will create a huge, unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy and make absolutely no impact on the world’s so called ‘carbon problem’.

    Australians will rightly punish these goofy politicians at the next election and the policy will be reversed – but in the meantime, how many billions of dollars will have gone pointlessly to money heaven.

  53. I like Australia and Australians are down-to-Earth, sensible people with a healthy disrespect for authority. Juliar is doing a Mugabe … destroying her nation to remain in power.

  54. Ye Gods! A convoluted, mishmash of non-economics gibberish justifying a ‘tax solution’ to a nonexistent problem. All of it stated with the certainty that only the confirmed elitists among us can deliver, as they tell us poor dim bulbs ‘what is good for us’!

    Mates, it’s time for the peasants to take pitchforks and torches to hand and drive this Frankenstein law and it’s creators out of the castle… again.

  55. John Marshall, Gillard isn’t stupid or an idiot … she is desperately clinging to power by her finger-nails. One vote less in parliament and she’s out; new election. This is the green party policy she is implementing because she doesn’t give a fode about anything other than her political vanity. I am quite surprised how the three “Independants” propping up her government are going along with this, it will be their political death as well. How much are they being paid?

  56. jonova: Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet.

    Agreed — to an extent. In fact, we cannot calculate any of this to the precision implied. Please stop pretending that we can. What we should probably say is that to adjust future temperatures by a resolvable amount will require more than every man, woman, child can afford.

  57. Hey, I have a great idea! Let’s send more money to the politicians so they can send some of it back to us! That way they can buy our votes with our own money!

    Oh wait, they already do…

  58. kramer: “Were there is a will there is a way! During world war II the US Americans rationed . . .
    There can be a certain amount of kwh rationed to all for very little or no charge . . . just like eggs, milk and toilet paper . . . after that you purchase . . . . being circumspect I already know the downside it called “gaming the system” . . . some will collect two (or more) rations . . . and some will sell rations . . . there are ways to make society more just . . . . takes thought and forethought.

    I don’t have all the answers, nor does any mere imperfect mortal human . . . but, it starts will resolve. And the assumption that if you are born, there is a place for you . . . so everyone move over and make a space and a place! In my opinion . . . .

  59. Personally speaking, I’d like to congratulate PM Gillard and her carbon tax on industry and other carbon users. One less competitor on the global stage to worry about. We (Canada) need all the breaks we can get trading on the open market. No doubt starting this summer Australian temperatures will drop allowing us to sell winter clothes to this market as we are experts in this field, no more flooding ever again, cyclones will disappear and never again ravage Australia, the hinterlands, previously hot and dry, will turn green and droughts will be a thing of the distant past. All in all a win/win for Australia – and on top of that – feed the little people. What’s not to love?

  60. Mac the Knife: “Ye Gods! A convoluted, mishmash of non-economics gibberish justifying a ‘tax solution’ to a nonexistent problem.”

    The problem is real . . . “they” truly believe that their “inheritance” and “their childrens inheritance” is abject, absolute, control of the whole world for their own personal satisfaction . . . and any one who disagrees . . . . is, was, and always will be damned! And that’s darned tootin’! I think they call it the “prosperity ministry” . . . . God blessed them with you and me for peons! Get with the “program” . . . peasant! Just where do you think their vast weath derives . . . The land, the labor . . . and the “capital” is all theirs’, theirs’ and just theirs’! Bow! Now! If “they” deem it wise to burden you, who do you think you are to question a superior being! Albeit a hue-man being!

  61. Western civilizations industry and wealth is based on national strategies of inexpensive energy. They are fools who are changing this strategy for the tactics of expensive energy and pursuing the dogma of Green ideology. In reality we can have inexpensive energy and green, we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, only the only the mental slow people can’t see this.

  62. What the Juliard communists are trying to do is no different then what the old sov.s did when they decided what was to be produced, by whom, and by how much.

    When half the industry produces shoes and half is producing vodka is it a wonder then that all end up getting paid in shoes or vodka for producing shoes and vodka and the rest be starving for they have neither shoe leather to eat nor distilled potatoes to drink?

    Sadly, people only need to look at EU to know what will happen when all sorts of carbon taxes are introduced. Industry quickly adapts by raising prices on the internal market, thereby making consumers out of tax payers otherwise higher income taxes. It was already decided that the EU behemoth needed more cash, the only question was how to raise that cash, and in a predominantly socialist union healthy consumerism was not an option but could be disguised as such by taxing producers thereby making it look like the consumers market. Here’s the kicker though, by doing like this, is the wet dream of a socialist, because it looks like it’s all about consumerism, and it sounds like saving the planet (which was the propaganda to sell it to the voter), and the consuming of the higher prices are still taxed by value on a relative basis. So win win win for the socialist, instant green, politician.

    It’s all hogwash of course, which is starting to be seen since the all that money that is generated by thrice taxing, isn’t going back into the internal market, it is used to further the EU government (which has yet to reach its full design size) who are also giving it all away, with out asking for anything in return and without common check and balances requirement attached to it, to countries who don’t buy expensive technology or help from EU, since India and China are so much cheaper (this is the supposed wealth redistribution logic.)

    So,essentially, it is no major weirdness as to why more and more countries in EU are having financial problems and failing internal markets. What’s ironic is that the why EU don’t fund all the necessary new high speed, and green, rail road system, is because they’ve already decided to give all the money to the wind mill industry and the food for ethanol industry. So don’t be surprised if you start getting paid with ethanol when working as a blow hard in front of a wind mill. :p

  63. Canada rejected this madness a couple of years ago and recently put the last nail in the coffin electing a Conservative majority in May 2011. The parties that advocated carbon taxes cap and trade buried it so deep in their campaign rhetoric it scarcely was mentioned. A lot of people believed that the left liberal parties would have done exactly what Gillard did in Oz,.

  64. I’m thinking the theme song to Gilligan’s Island re-titled and re-written to “Gillard’s Island”
    Last verse:
    So this is the tale of our carbon tax,
    it’s here for a long long time.
    They’ll have to make the best of things,
    it’s an uphill climb.
    My mates and kangaroo’s too
    will do their very best,
    to make the others comf’terble
    in their tropic island nest.
    No phone ,no lights, no motor car,
    not a single luxury
    like Robinson Crusoe
    it’s primitive as can be.
    So join us here each week my friends,
    you’re sure to get a smile,
    from 23 million stranded castaways
    here on Gillard’s Isle!

  65. what you gonna do in 2 years time when everything in Australia is going just fine? Hard to argue carbon tax will destroy the economy if Australia is living it and doing fine.

  66. “…Who knows, it might even be a positive outcome. Economies regularly adapt to new markets and its not as if Australians were any more enlightened as a consumer populace before. They have always been driven by corporate advertising and personal gain, like Americans. ” – SamG

    Given the choice between leaving well enough alons, Disasterous consequences, or SamG’s conjecture that there might even be a positive outcome a rational person would probably select the first option.

    I don’t see any viable “new markets” in the offing based on this legislation. Please elaborate. I just see an artificial attempt at manipulation of an existing market through govt. intervention, which usually results in at best mixed results. I’m also curious if the rubes are motivated by “corporate advertising and personal gain” what is your motivation since your lifestyle is likely indistinguishable from that of the rubes.

  67. Fresh from The Telegraph (UK)!

    £50 trillion needs to be spent on going green if world is to avert ‘major planetary catastrophe’
    Almost £50 trillion must be spent on green technology over the coming decades if the world is to avert a “major planetary catastrophe”, the United Nations has claimed.

    Governments must invest three per cent of world GDP – about £1.2 trillion in 2010 – annually for 40 years to stop climate change and famine, according to the UN’s department of economic and social affairs.

    At least £688 billion of that will need to be spent each year in developing countries, in order to meet their populations’ increasing demands for resources, the 2011 World Economic and Social Survey said.

    The UK is sending in the down payment for their contribution:

    Power bills to soar by 30% in ‘green’ reforms
    Household electricity bills will soar by 30 per cent to pay for “green” measures being announced this week by Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, according to experts.

    Costly new incentives to encourage energy companies to invest in renewable power sources such as wind farms will put an extra £160 a year on the average household bill over the next 20 years.

    The huge rise is on top of drastic increases in bills being faced already by consumers. Last Friday British Gas, which posted profits of £742million last year, announced gas price rises of 18 per cent, which followed Scottish Power saying it would increase rises of 10 to 15 per cent.

    Mr Huhne is expected to announce on Tuesday that energy companies, such as Centrica and EDF, will get a fixed price for electricity generated from nuclear power and wind farms, which will be higher than the market price.

    The financial incentives will be funded by consumers, who will see their electricity bills rise by 30 per cent over the next 20 years from an average of £493 per year to £655 per year.

    And the Julliard is making certain Australia donates her fair share as well, per the “wishes” of the UN, despite what the nigh-illiterate anti-science Outback yokels incorrectly think they want.

    Oh well, at least the UK is giving special mention to nuclear. Carry on chaps!

  68. I am just as annoyed with the AGW hysteria as the rest of you. We should understand that all this is coming from governments. It is just another tax to them. After taxing the income you make and taxing everything you buy, want else can they do?
    If the government can get the people to welcome the tax because it is saving the planet, even better. The problem is how to make the average citizen read, understand and think and how to elect honest members of government.

  69. Wow!
    Such a lot has already been said about the absolute stupidity of Julia’s Carbon Tax that I can’t comment any further on it, other than to say that I have never seen a politician commit such an act of public suicide.
    What I can comment on, however, is the crassness of Buff Huhne, our Minister for Energy here in the UK, and his amazing idea of putting up energy prices to save us (the poor bloody infantry, tax-paying workers) more of our own money!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8627719/Power-bills-to-soar-by-30-in-green-reforms.html

    My wife and I, both retired and on fixed incomes, simply cannot afford what this fool is advocating with regard to our energy prices. Already, I rely on fire-wood which I have taken from nearby woodland for my heat (and tonight, 10th July 2011 it’s cold enough for us to have a small fire burning). I’m talking about the money needed to have lights on during the dark Winter nights. A 30% increase in the cost of keeping a couple of rooms illuminated is beyond my financial ability with this sort of price rise.
    Thank goodness that both my wife and I grew up in rural Africa and that we are well-aware of the lower standards of living to which we are going to forced to adapt here, in what was once the world’s technological and industrial leader.
    Socialism has got a great deal to answer for.

  70. I find it very difficult to understand the thinking behind this, their religious belief in AGW must be incredibly strong. Did they really think the electorate was going to welcome this with open arms? Surely not so they must have some kind of death wish, a desire to lose power. I cannot understand it at all – they must really think the people are fools.

  71. onion2 says:
    July 10, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    what you gonna do in 2 years time when everything in Australia is going just fine? Hard to argue carbon tax will destroy the economy if Australia is living it and doing fine.

    Just keep telling yourself that, onion2. Judging by your ‘logic’, it seems to be about all you can do about the imminent loss of your sub-species’ parasitic habitat – unless perhaps your parents will still be able to afford to house you in their basement regardless?

  72. Bomber_the_Cat says on July 10, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I think Andrew Bolt misses the point to describe CO2 merely as ‘plant food’. …

    Did he use the word ‘merely’ – or are you constructing a strawman argument?

    The statement by Bolt: “Carbon Dioxide is not only what we breathe out, it’s also plant food.” was preceded by several politicians calling CO2 “Carbon Pollution” so I think you have to grant him the literary license for the contrast with those pols … but yet you find NO problem with the pols using the term “carbon pollution?”

    Are you perchance a silicon-based ‘life form’? Or simply bent on busting Bolt for benignly contrasting bellicose pols over blatantly mistaken terms?

    .

  73. Once the tax is in place any successful party in the next elections will be unable to ‘undo’ the damage. Reliance on the income will have become ‘the norm’ – no politician would ever voluntarily give up a tax-take. Blaming it on the previous government is far easier.

  74. Is it A$23 per ton of carbon dioxide (page 3 of the report) or $A 23 per ton of carbon (page 6 onwards) ? There is a big difference between the two something like 3.7 times. The modeling of the price impacts seems to be based on $23/ton of carbon which showed minimal impacts.

  75. observa says:
    July 10, 2011 at 8:50 am

    observa, the Australian Labor Party has form on kiddie fiddling. A number of their politicians are doing time for just that.

  76. ‘Some of the cost paid by big polluters will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy.’
    Huh? Some? Is she a complete retard? Any increase in costs will be passed on and then, if they are in a sector where there is competition from outside Australia, they will go bust reducing income from taxes, including the carbon tax, while increasing government expenditure due to increased unemployment. No wonder politicians never work in business as they haven’t a clue on economics. Still, the UK is just as stupid as we embark on a programme of building windmills….and one of power stations to provide the same amount of energy capacity as the windmills…..

  77. Has anybody noticed how much PM Julia Gillard looks like a slightly younger Nancy Pelosi of the US House of Representatives.

    They both spout lies and also make totally clueless statements, often not connected with reality. They both have agendas which have nothing to do with saving anything, just growing government and revenue while crippling their economies.

  78. ANH says:
    July 10, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    “I cannot understand it at all – they must really think the people are fools.”

    Of course we’re fools, we in the western world. We’re the most heavily armed people in the world (where even .50 calibre sniper canons are quiet alright as long as you have the correct license for it), yet for decades anyone has yet to make any sort of armed rebellion. This is what democracy bought europe, remember, peace, stability and prosperity, that was the goal, and apparently that is very bad now, since the communists couldn’t keep up, so they think we all need to redistribute the “riches” because they couldn’t get a job way back when . . . still, the rest of us, just go about being all decent about it, so yes we’re probably fools (since they wouldn’t treat us the same.)

  79. kramer says: July 10, 2011 at 9:11 am
    “Doesn’t anybody see what I see here? What I see is that this (AGW) is more about equalizing the economies of the world (lowering developed economies while raising developing countries economies), redistributing wealth within and among nations, control of the world’s natural resources by the UN (or some other supranational agency) and hence by proxy control of the economies of all nations than it is about reducing global warming.”

    You are totally correct, except for the fact that they do not want undeveloped countries to develop. By shipping the wealth from developed countries, they can bleed their economies and bring down their standard of living, and by delivering wealth to undeveloped countries, they will be funding dictators and corrupt governments who will then never have to worry about their country’s development and can afford to keep them oppressed and under control—they will be made into nanny states, forever under UN control or the allowance gets cut off.

  80. bring on global warming in australia 160 cm of snow in 3 days best snow fall in 20 years log onto snow cam see for yourself

  81. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. describes the government’s “45 million cars off the road” example as unfortunate. When you consider that the government’s carbon dioxide tax will not even apply to petrol (gasoline) used by private motorists I’d say the example is downright absurd.

  82. 1DandyTroll said:
    . . . yet for decades anyone has yet to make any sort of armed rebellion.

    That is for self defense . . . the castle principle? . . .

    “Armed rebellion” only results in the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . you must pay attention . . . The wheels of justice (right judgment) turn slowly . . . . and sometimes not at all!

    Oh say can you see . . . . Dred Scott v Sanderson . . . . took many generations to change that injustice . . . back then “property rights” was code for? . . . . .

    “Redress” is in the First Amendment for good cause and reason!

  83. Gilliard has simply made a Faustian bargain with the Greens in order to stay in power. She is calculating that her political opposition in weak and divided and that her payment scheme will buy off enough voters so that she has a shot of winning the next election. These are the calculations of one cunning and cynical, but also the calculations of a mediocrity. Should popular opposition to the tax remain strong, as I suspect it will, she will also be revealed to be a fool.

  84. The big problem is that the biggest Australian political parties are revolting.

    The Lib/Nat coalition is full of traitors who want to reduce the Australian workers to serfs of the rich, to sell the country to the Chinese, to suck up to Israel, and to send Diggers to die in America’s Israel-inspired wars.

    The ALP is full of traitors who want to reduce the Australian workers to serfs of the Greens, to sell the country to the Chinese, to suck up to Israel, and to send Diggers to die in America’s Israel-inspired wars.

    The balance of power is held by the Greens, who have pretty good ideas about almost everything except the environment. On that they are religious fanatics.

    We’re doomed.

  85. The only way to stop this is to shake up the Federal ALP members – if they realise that this will kill their careers stone dead come 2012 elections and consign them to political obscurity for the rest of their lives, then they might start to question the proposals. All it takes is one or two to cross the floor against the ALP at vote time and the bill is toast.

    Start your writing campaign to your local Federal ALP MP now.

  86. Wil says:
    July 10, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Personally speaking, I’d like to congratulate PM Gillard and her carbon tax on industry and other carbon users. One less competitor on the global stage to worry about. We (Canada) need all the breaks we can get trading on the open market. No doubt starting this summer Australian temperatures will drop allowing us to sell winter clothes to this market as we are experts in this field, no more flooding ever again, cyclones will disappear and never again ravage Australia, the hinterlands, previously hot and dry, will turn green and droughts will be a thing of the distant past. All in all a win/win for Australia – and on top of that – feed the little people. What’s not to love?

    Problem is ours,I agree Wil. l I would expect our world trade competitors to take advantage and it is already underway. The Gillard and greens have allowed large tracts of farming land to be sold off to Chinese government backed coal mining interests in the Northern parts of Australia and China is also quietly buying up other farming land in the Southern Parts of Australia for securing their future food supplies from what will be Chinese land located in Australia. All of our “clean” coal is being exported to China and other destinations to burn in coal fired power plants(under multi year forward contract) and with that Chinese wealth generated with what was our coal, they will eventually sell/lease (rent) technology back to Australia while our main cheap brown coal burning Hazelwood power station is dismantled under the Mantra of the Hansen Greens who are hell bent on crippling both our industrial potential and economic vitality. While China will build and use huge coal burning power stations and develop “Clean” (with other peoples money) coal power generation, The greens have declared (Adam Bandt) “there will be NO further coal power generating plants built in Australia”!! Such is the “left power” they wield over our economy, and while we export tons of uranium to other countries for power generation, both Labour and the Greens abhor any suggestion of nuclear power generation. The only hope we have is squandering liquid petroleum gas to short term fuel power generation (electricity) supplies instead of using that gas for transport use to take over from diesel fuel across the vast and remote areas of continental Australia.

    Also as a warning to others, look closely at the way this carbon dioxide tax is being introduced and be aware that the devil is in the detail, Like Obamacare that your legislators were not allowed to read closely, much is proposed to be done in the future by regulation, in the legislation that will be rammed through parliament with the slim Greens/Labor/independents majority. Once the bill is passed in Parliament the regulations will be used to extend the nasty side of the wealth and power redistribution and gerrymandering of the voter districts. Repeated calls that its being done because of science and saving the world – “We Have to do it” lies and misrepresentation is the name of the leftist game.

  87. RoHa says:
    July 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm
    The balance of power is held by the Greens, who have pretty good ideas about almost everything except the environment. On that they are religious fanatics.

    Did I read that correctly, are we talking about policies like these:
    Ban uranium mining, nuclear power and new hydro-electric or water supply dams
    Reallocate water rights from food production to the environment
    Increase in the company tax rate to 33%
    Abolish the WTO
    End the ANZUS defence treaty.
    Introduce same-sex marriage
    Relax border protection laws abolish detention of illegal immigrants
    Legalise the use of cannabis
    Legalise heroin on prescription
    Introduce death taxes.
    Introduce laws to prevent outback economic development
    Free (publicly funded) sex change surgery

  88. Doesn’t the Australian constitution permit a “spill” whereby the prime minister is turfed out and replaced by someone with more votes within the caucus? This is the case in the UK, and (IIRC) both Thatcher and Major lost power instantly. We can’t do it in Canada, more’s the pity.

    IanM

  89. Ian L. McQueen July 10, 2011 at 9:14 pm, that’s how we ended up with Julia as PM! Then, after knifing the elected PM and proceeding to lose the next Federal election, she went into partnership with the Greens (who would never, ever side with the Liberal/National Party anyway). But even then, she had to secure a partnership with 3 Independents. One of them is an ex-intelligence officer who’s claim to fame was spilling his guts over highly classified national secrets, and who won his electorate with something like 20% of the primary vote. He is nothing but a lap dog for the Greens, so he was always going to support Julia. Even then she couldn’t form government. She still had to win over another two (of three more) independents, and did so by indulging them with massive pork barrell fat, the likes of which has probably never been seen before in Australia. These two guys, now roundly hated in their own electorates in spite of all the incoming dollars that are provided by working people like me, are gonners at the next election. So they have to extend the life of this government for as long as possible to delay the inevitable termination of their political careers.
    But as they say, a nation gets the government it deserves, and Australians voted for this mess so we deserve everything we’re getting.

  90. What I find most disturbing about this is not the fallacy of the scientific argument, but of the economic one. The pensioner won’t be much affected? They’ll pay another $9.90 in taxes but they’ll get $10.10 in rebates? So they’ll be just fine?

    Of course their food bill will go up because food gets to the store via “big polluters” like trucking companies, not to mention stored, processed, grown, harvested by… “big polluters”. Kinda important because all three of his kids and his 9 grandchildren want to move back in with him since they lost all their jobs and the bank repossesed their houses, so the poor guy’s grocery bill is going to skyrocket.

    An the bright side, with that many people living in one house, body heat will keep it warm, no need for heating fuel. More water consumption though…does the tax rebate cover an extra bathroom or two?

  91. Ian L McQueen – yes, it does. And that’s how Julia Gillard got in. She toppled the previous leader, Kevin Rudd by getting control of the caucus through the union powerbrokers that control the party.

    Ironically a lot of Rudd’s support was lost when Gillard (as deputy) told him to drop the ETS he was proposing. Once that support was gone, she moved in for the kill, quoting opinion polls that had his support crashing.

    Fast forward 12 months, she scraped through an election by forming a minority government, after promising on election eve that a carbon tax would not be imposed.

    That minority government holds together because of signed agreements with Gillard herself. So a caucus removal of the PM could also bust up the government. So the party is scared to replace the leader because (a) they’ve already tried that once and (b) it has the potential to dissolve the government in a no-confidence motion.

    All it takes for this bill and/or this government to fall is the loss of a single vote in parliament. This could either be someone ‘crossing the floor’, a retirement, death or sickness. They literally dangle by a thread and yet they try on the biggest change in the economy for decades, which only has about 15% public support. Their thinking is that they’ll buy off voters and people will get used to higher taxes, and life will go on. However, there’s a lot more to this than that – there’s the issue of rewarding a politician for lying before an election, there’s the issue of a union-backed party destroying unionised jobs in mining, steel and power. There’s a lot of red-hot anger in voter-land that is not going to be bought off with a couple of payments, all of which have to be borrowed. Because that’s the other madness of this scheme – it actually collects less money than it takes in, and the balance has to be borrowed. Only a truly incompetent government could invent a tax grab that leaves them out of pocket.

    Yes, it doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s the ultimate in hail-mary passes, if I haven’t mangled the analogy.

  92. Tony Windsor has been bombarded by educated people in Armidale for years about the climate
    change lies etc. He takes no notice. I for one have been very outspoken and warned him I would not vote for him again. Any politician who takes on side a policy based on scientific untruths
    when his supporters have provided him with alternative scientific proof then he has no idea.
    He is a farmer buying up large land acquistions and has already sold his farm to a coal mining company and leased it back. But the land he has now bought is on land already under gas exploitation licenses by the Chinese. Yet he is going to introduce a private bill to ‘Save our farms’ from mining and foreign acquisition. The thing is mining or minerals are not owned by the land holder they belong to the crown. You can’t stop foreign ownership or exploitation by law. He has to change the legislation as these mining exploration licenses sometimes last for 30 years.
    Probably protecting his newly acquired land. But – he has said he won’t support this government unless they agree to his private bill. Bit late, almost blackmail like Wilkie saying the same if new
    and useless poker machine reforms aren’t passed. The Greens say they will block any move
    from a future government removing carbon tax legislation. Hey this is democracy? We overturned the capital punishment law can’t bad laws be overturned too?

  93. @Bob in Castlemaine

    Well, these:
    Ban uranium mining, nuclear power and new hydro-electric or water supply dams
    Reallocate water rights from food production to the environment
    Introduce laws to prevent outback economic development

    are environment policies. (Now we don’t actually use nuclear power in Australia but I’m not too happy about it, so I don’t object too much to the ban on uranium mining either. I would like to see research done on thorium power.)

    As for the others, some of them don’t seem any worse than the craziness of the traitor parties, and others seem to be harmless or even a good idea.

  94. I think, I finally understand – following the GFC, Australia stood tall as one of very few survivors in the Western World. Here we have sufficient growth and jobs that our interest rate is 7% and the Australian Dollar is now worth more than the American Peso. Now this is clearly upsetting someone who clearly had hoped to drive all Western style economies to the wall. Hence the Carbon Tax, what better way to ensure that Australia follows the rest over the financial precipice. Be seeing you soon good buddies!

  95. Prime Minister Julia Gillard: AROUND five hundred big polluters will pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere.
    The policy of PM Gillard works as follows:
    1. Divide et impera. Five hundred companies are accused of “pollution” because they convert oxygen into carbon dioxide! She uses the term of abuse “polluters”. These hard working companies are pilloried due to their carbon dioxide emission. Due to the unfair utterances of Gillard, their reputation is unfairly injured. They have but one choice: leave the country. This is the consequence of the segratation policy of PM Julia Gillard.
    2. Due to the fact that the government will not get the objective, i.e. make renewables cheaper than coal, she will take the following step: the payment of a carbon tax “named pollution tax” by all companies. “All companies are equal before the law”! People is so brainwashed that, when they hear the word “carbon”, they think automatically “pollution”. The real pollution (e.g. lead pollution) in the country remains untouched.
    3. Finally, all animals and humans will be taxed because they exhale carbon dioxide. Farmers with large herds of cattle will have to pay for all animals. “All carbon producing creatures are equal before the law”!
    It is not too late to defeat this disgusting PM proposal!

  96. help…
    I am sure i did NOT tick the notify of new posts..
    inbox is crying:-(
    and I cant find a go away tab…
    help, please. mods
    and no wordpress doesnt seem? to have me subscribed either.

  97. I am surprised at the assumption that lower income households will vote ALP – the polls reacting to Gillards speech do not show this at all.
    Should it be assumed that because someone does not have a huge income they are stupid enought to believe a proven liar?
    Few people are being offered more than $10 per week as “compensation”. Few people would be foolish enough to believe her absurd statement that the tax will impact on families by less than that amount.

  98. With all the attention on Australia’s Carbon Tax battles you guys are missing out on the Carbon Taxes that are quietly being imposed and increased in Canada, the supplier of most of your oil. BC just increased it’s Carbon Taxes as did Alberta. Yup, Alberta has Carbon Taxes!!! The tar-sands province where most of your oil comes from taxes the carbon! Pay attention and help us get this madness stopped and reversed in Canada before it impacts you guys in the USA too much!

  99. Carl Chapman says:
    When one of the two major parties goes this bad, it’s bad for democracy. Democracy needs a choice between two reasonable alternatives.

    What does it mean for democracy when both major parties go bad and there are no reasonable alternatives?

  100. There are many comments here and in other places along the lines: “I can’t even gloat about the fools in the Labor Party committing political suicide. ” (Carl Chapman comment on this page).

    Never underestimate your enemy. Are they really fools committing political suicide, or they really deadly serious and implementing George Orwell’s “1984” a few years late?
    The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

  101. The Australian stock market opened down on Monday and finished lower down. From:

    http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EAORD

    ALL ORDINARIES (ASX: ^AORD )
    Index Value:	4,563.50
    Trade Time:	13:36
    Change:	 83.30 (1.79%)
    


    I suspect that 1.79% is just a down payment on drops to come. I’d not put any money into Australia now. Best to wait a year or two and see what happens.

    I must, however, thank Ms. Gillard as she is about to become an “Example Extraordinaire” to all the other politicians of the world. One can only hope Obama and the Democrats are watching…

    Self immolation, while spectacular, usually does not encourage others who are present to join in the agony and screaming…

  102. Since CO2’s “greenhouse” effects are rapidly and thoroughly damped and nullified by far more potent forces (the hydrological cycle, for starters), the actual amount it would cost each Australian/global citizen to control/stop warming by cutting carbon dioxide emissions is infinite. None of the expenditures will have any traceable effect.

  103. TonyG says:
    July 11, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Carl Chapman says:
    When one of the two major parties goes this bad, it’s bad for democracy. Democracy needs a choice between two reasonable alternatives.

    What does it mean for democracy when both major parties go bad and there are no reasonable alternatives?

    Either the country collapses, or an alternative arises which elbows one of the two into the dustbin and becomes a new second party. It may arise from repentant or rebellious factions in one or both of the original parties, but gains its mandate from a plurality or majority which rejected both.

    Bloodletting may or may not be involved.

  104. It seems that at various places around the globe, AGW advocacy is becoming a political third rail. It nearly fatally electrocuted the Canadian Liberal Party in the last election (along with associated issues and a parachuted-in Harvard ultra-liberal leader), which had basked for generations in an imagined “natural ruling party” status.

    The current in the rail is ramping up. Encourage your opponents to grasp it!

  105. With regard to sea level rising, has anyone looked at the World Shipping register to see the thousands if billions of tonnes at sea to transport mineral and other cargo around the world. If we stopped mining in Australia ship sizes would grow and distance travelled would be longer. All that tonnage and volume must increase the sea level.
    John Mac Qld

  106. Julia you forgot to mention how this carbon tax would actually reduce carbon?
    This is not reducing carbon so much as “shifting funds”, the alledged big users are going to increase the cost to produce the product, Labour are going to give us tax cuts so it doesn’t cost anything extra for us to use that product but e.g. if we need to use 20 million tonnes of coal per year, then just by raising the cost will not stop anyone from buying it, (if we NEED to use it, then it has to be used) this plan as it stands fails to cut back on the alledged carbon produced to produce this product, in which case we might as well not have a carbon tax at all.

Comments are closed.