Carbon Tax Mark 4? A Stealthy Cancer

Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That
10 July 2011

Carbon Tax Mark 4 is flimsy but dangerous.

Because of public opposition to a new tax on everything, the tax has been gutted. The PM hopes to buy public support by giving exemptions to almost everyone and offering widespread bribes to voters. It is now feeble and ineffective.

But the Green-Gillard coalition is desperate and such people cannot be trusted. They will say or promise anything in order to get this new tax introduced.

Once on the law books, the exemptions will be whittled away, the tax rate will increase and the tax bribes will disappear. It is a stealthy cancer in the gut of the Australian economy.

The cost of electricity, food, fuel and travel will increase, but few people will recognise the root cause. Politicians will blame “Woolworths, power suppliers and Big Oil” for the pain.

This new stealth tax is the thin edge of the wedge.

It will have no effect on the climate, but is a fiscal weapon too dangerous to be left in the hands of green extremists.

Leaving Bob Brown loose with the vast powers of a carbon tax is like leaving the grandkids alone in the hayshed with a box of matches.

“Abolish the Stealth Tax” will be the next election slogan.

Viv Forbes
Via Rosewood    Qld    4340   Australia
vforbes@bigpond.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in carbon tax, Letters To The Editor, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Carbon Tax Mark 4? A Stealthy Cancer

  1. Tom says:

    For those of you in the UK, and in particular Scotland – the power utilities have been stiffing you for an illegal and ineptly stealthy “carbon tax” since 2002 see:

    http://tpdrsl.org/index.php/bloggo/starvethe-beast

    and more here:

    http://tpdrsl.org/index.php/bloggo/how-to-starve-the-beast

    They (Scottish Power et al) are putting their fingers in their ears at the moment….

    Save 8% on your utility and make a point into the bargain.

  2. Ed Reid says:

    A tax is a means of raising revenue, regardless of the “vehicle” (excuse) used to levy the tax.

    A carbon tax would very reliably increase the cost of fossil fuels and everything made from and with them. It would not reliably and predictably reduce carbon emissions. Reductions would depend on: the cost of the alternative energy sources; the cost of emission reduction approaches; the relationship of these costs to the tax; and, the price elasticity of demand. The higher the costs of practical alternative sources, or of emissions control equipment, the higher the carbon tax would have to be to achieve some level of emissions reductions. Lower demand elasticity would also require the carbon tax to be higher.

    One can only imagine how effectively the incremental tax revenues would be applied.

  3. John Campbell says:

    >> Leaving Bob Brown loose with the vast powers of a carbon tax is like leaving the grandkids alone in the hayshed with a box of matches.

    We’ve got the same thing in the UK. Mr Chris Huhne, the minister for Climate Change, plans to have spent 100 billion pounds on windmills by 2020. Part of this is for a new grid to take account of the variabilities in wind generation. In addition, and to cope with the variable supply, he’s also going to build 17 gas-fired power stations to pick up the load when the wind doesn’t blow (or when it blows too hard). These power stations will be on standby, operating sub-optimally, and so producing more CO2 than when operating at their design optimum. Thus Mr Huhne plans to spend 117 billion pounds of our (UK taxpayer’s) money in the years up to 2020 not only to produce the electricity we need but also to *increase* the output of CO2. Go figure. Maybe you can. But Mr Huhne’s greenness is incomprehensible to me.

  4. JackN says:

    “Tax.”

    Remarkably, it is ultimately a stealth cap and trade. Read the plan. And that plan was not whipped up overnight, and probably written by lobbyists working for the Aussie likes of Goldman Sachs. There is only a tax for three years, then it makes a “transition” to cap and trade. Which would mean the Aussie government giving up tax money in order to increase the profits of City of London type traders and those who can best invent carbon credits to sell. Via the UN’s certification mechanism, over 40% of the offsets come from China, and if more than 10% of those are legit, I’d eat my hat. The mention of specific targeted cuts by 2020 have nothing to do with a tax, but with cap and trade accounting, and calibration with Europe’s 2020 deadline. The 2020 tells me City of London owns the Aussie Labor party much.

    When have politicians lied so much, risked so much, for a tax that they will give up in three years? Nope, I smell money on the backend, from the traders, maybe even China. Maybe guaranteed “investments” for the Greens. The only way I see why a cap and trade must be preceded by a tax is to give cover to Green purists who know cap and trade is a scam. There is no way personal money or power in the future from financial interests is involved. This is not a scam that comes from greenies yelling about pollution, but bankers. Maybe China owns Gillard??

  5. Robert says:

    Good luck in trying to get rid of it. We had it rammed down our throats here in BC all in the name of saving the planet.

  6. Roger Sowell says:

    As bad as this is, it seems better than the fiasco that California has with un-elected state agencies (primarily the Air Resources Board) forcing a cap-and-trade regulation on the state, rather than a carbon tax. Californians have essentially zero chance of overturning this very bad regulation at the ballot box. We tried, unsuccessfully, this past November (2010) with the ill-fated Proposition 23.

    The same arguments from above apply:

    Cap-and-trade is supposed to start out gently with little to no harm, then increase gradually “as the economy improves.”

    It is supposed to combat the predicted evils of CAGW – shoreline inundation from rising sea levels, reduced or non-existent snowpack which is the source of most of California’s fresh water, more frequent and intense heat waves, more hazardous air and the health impacts, and others.

    It is also supposed to stimulate technological innovation so that California invents the technologies and devices to solve the world’s problems related to CAGW. This is supposed to create jobs in California and boost the economy. Yet California’s economy is very near the worst in the country.

    Meanwhile, California’s entire energy usage – read CO2 output – is approximately 2 percent of the world’s output. Cutting California’s CO2 output by 30 percent is like removing a thimbleful of water from an ocean, not nearly enough to make any difference.

    The stark realities are that the ocean level is not rising off of California, instead it is decreasing. The snowpack has not declined, indeed, there is a near-record snowpack this year. The rivers and streams are thundering as fresh water pours into the ocean because there are not sufficient reservoirs in which to store the water. Heat waves are few and far between. The air is cleaner than ever before due to other regulations under the federal Clean Air Act and various state regulations designed to meet its requirements.

    Words to a song from the 60’s come to mind: We’re On the Eve of Destruction. (1965 by Barry McGuire)

  7. Spen says:

    You Aussies think YOU have a problem. Just wait til next week when our Energy Secretary puts forward his policy for a low carbon economy. We are talking about 30% annual hikes to build windmills and subsidise nuclear. It’s OK though because according to Prime Minister Cameron ( assuming he’s got his instructions from Murdoch) it will make the UK the greenest country in the world (and one of the poorest). You think Greece has problems – you ain’t seen nothing yet.!

  8. Ww says:

    I remember a Liberal hopeful stand at my door and tell me that there would be exemptions and the carbon tax wouldn’t hurt the ordinary citizen so this is exactly the strategy the (Dion) Liberals tried in Canada an election ago. Canadians, thankfully, didn’t fall for it – or perhaps the party was unable to sell it.

  9. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Totally agree Viv. As a Welsh/Australian with two grown-up children returned to Aus. (Hunter’s Hill and Hornsby) I follow the Australian scene closely. It is extraordinary that with so many prominent and vocal ‘sceptic’ scientists that Australian politicians have chosen such an economically suicidal route. The politicos in the UK are similarly dazzled by the CO2 meme.
    I am very embarrassed that Gillard, surely the most incompetent of Australian Prime Ministers, and with Hawke, Keating and Rudd she has serious competition, was born in Wales.
    She will go down in history along with Huhne and too many others to mention as a destroyer of once vibrant economies.
    (p.s. Perhaps Bob Tisdale’s latest post will be the clincher. Some hope.)

  10. Leon Brozyna says:

    This is just the latest program of all too many brought to the unsuspecting public by the Good Intentions Paving Company. It is, of course and unfortunately, not limited to Australia. It starts out with a small beginning, sometimes seeming so innocuous, whether it be retirement programs, health programs, environment programs, educational programs, etc. It sounds so good, filled with goodies for everybody…and everybody then line up to get a piece of the action they never knew they needed. All of a sudden, a modest $10 billion program explodes to $250 billion, and nobody knows what hit ‘em …

    Ask the people of Greece how they like their decades of freebies, now that the Piper has called to collect while the country is dropping of a cliff into depression. Who’s next … Italy … Spain … Portugal … Ireland?

    And when all such programs fail, as they always will, the blame will fall on: people are too selfish, too greedy, BIG (and it’s always big) [fill in the blank] sabotaged a good plan.

    Notice that the politicians that foist their plans on an unsuspecting public never accept their blame for the mess they create by exceeding the bounds of good common sense. They never admit it but they really do think they rule a country, rather than hold their position as a servant to each nation’s many sovereigns

  11. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Letter to the Editor
    Watts Up With That

    We now have an editor? Is that an improvement?

    Politicians will blame “Woolworths, power suppliers and Big Oil” for the pain.
    There used to be Woolworth’s department stores in the US and elsewhere, had one in town. In case anyone’s wondering, the Woolworths mentioned here is Australia’s and New Zealand’s equivalent of Walmart.

  12. Monroe says:

    Yes, BC now has a tax on carbon dioxide and as the only ones in North America to have it, I can honestly tell you IT SUCKS!!! The sucking noise is from the economy and the bone headed BC Liberals who brought it in. I switched to the BC Conservatives because they promise to throw it out.

    It’s freezing up here!!!

  13. Rudebaeger says:

    The trick is that the people in power will be able to grant exemptions based upon how many political donations are made to them.

    No donations, No exemptions.

    To me, this is basically a political racket designed to put money in the hands of politicians in power & seeking re-election.

  14. gnomish says:

    heh- if you don’t want it rammed down your throat, first, don’t get on your knees, then don’t open your mouth and close your eyes.
    oz is getting what they have paid for.
    it is just.
    now if you want better – be better. to do that, you first have to know better. are we there yet?

  15. Monroe, how’s the economy in neighboring Alberta these days?

  16. Dr A Burns says:

    >>Ed Reid says:
    >>A tax is a means of raising revenue, regardless of the “vehicle” (excuse) used to levy the tax.

    Interestingly, it’s supposed to be switched to emissions trading in 2015. Perhaps this is the bribe for businesses, to allow them to shut manufacturing down, sack the workers and move manufacturing offshore, earnings millions in credits, in Pachauri fashion ?

  17. Ross says:

    As an Australian I compare this deceitful act to the introduction of our GST years ago – with one exception – the government that introduced that at least ran an election campaign saying it would be introduced unlike our current situation where our PM said “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”.

    I also remember how we were “compensated” for the GST at the time – tax cuts and increases is social security.

    I note that in a few years those “compensations” became worthless with some inflation and other cost of living pressures BUT the GST impost appears on nearly everything.

    There is one difference though – the GST is clearly stated on every bill – I hate it but it is at least honestly displayed.

    I’ll bet that doesn’t happen with this one though.

    I have supported the ALP all my life – they were once the party that represented workers, they provided Australia with many social policies without extremism and they were usually honest – as a working person they were the logical choice.

    But no more – they have become dishonest – “mean and tricky” and spin doctors.

    I will break a lifetime’s trend next election and vote conservative – not because I think their policies are superior but because I cannot support this tax and its ultimate goals and I cannot abide liars.

  18. SSam says:

    You have to PASS the bill before you can know what’s IN the bill…

    Familiar schema. Sort of like issuing thousands of waivers in order to get companies to endorse a convoluted bureaucratic morass of health-care regulations.

  19. Nick Shaw says:

    Ms. Forbes is absolutely right. Once the tax is on the books all those wonderful exemptions will disappear and I’m guessin’ it won’t be long before a future socialist leaning government takes it and runs with it. It doesn’t matter if the tax income is for a particular purpose, they will change the rules ’cause SPEND is in their genes. We all know the spending is to maintain their hold on power and not for the general welfare of the governed.
    She’s right about the “blame game” too. The Feds blame the the oil companies for high prices completely ignoring that they take more at the pump in fuel taxes than the oil company does. A lot more!
    Lying scoundrels, the lot of them!

  20. Latitude says:

    Ww says:
    July 10, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    I remember a Liberal hopeful stand at my door and tell me that there would be exemptions and the carbon tax wouldn’t hurt the ordinary citizen
    =================================================================
    You mean like re-defining who’s rich every 1- seconds, if you like your insurance you’ll be able to keep it, and the most transparent government that has to hurry up and pass it so you can read what’s in it?

  21. Brendan says:

    Please don’t judge the majority of Australians by this insane development.

    We have had a policy announced that sees $4.7 billion MORE spent than will be raised by the tax. Thats right.

    And for a tax that is supposed to curb consumption, people are compensated so that they can continue to consume without paying the price.

    Its is fairyland stuff.

    Poor fellow, my country

  22. RobertvdL says:

    What power is capable to corrupt so many countries. These politicians know they will not survive the next election but that does not seem to be a problem. WHY ?

    And those who win the next elections wil do exactly the same thing. WHY ?

    It looks like our politicians are or stupid , brainwashed or afraid.

  23. Steve in SC says:

    To prevent the camel’s nose under the tent from becoming the entire camel,
    the camel must be shot.

  24. Mike Borgelt says:

    Jack N, I wouldn’t be surprised if China owns Gillard. We had to fire the defence minister a couple of years ago because he had dubious contacts with Chinese intelligence agents. Kevin Rudd , the previous PM, likes to get drunk in nightclubs and paw naked women. No way a young Mandarin speaking diplomat with his habits could get in trouble on a China posting is there?

  25. Louis Hissink says:

    Too much focus on the science and not enough on the politics – these people are part of a world-wide political movement to install a socialist system by stealth, by any other name except what it truly is, and most of you have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

  26. Bruckner8 says:

    This must be what the people want. How else do these politicians get elected, and stay in power? In the USA, we have a guy leading the Conservative ticket (Mitt Romney) who believes in AGW! No one’s bringing it up as “an issue.”

    Again, we vote for these clowns. We get whatever we have coming.

  27. 3x2 says:

    “The PM hopes to buy public support by giving exemptions to almost everyone and offering widespread bribes to voters [...] Once on the law books, the exemptions will be whittled away, the tax rate will increase and the tax bribes will disappear.

    Watch the pea, watch the thimbles. There are no “exemptions”. End consumers pay the carbon tax, big “polluters” collect the tax for a cut off the top. Gillard retires on a massive public pension while “consulting” for Goldman Sachs. Her party claims that there have been no tax increases and CO2 goes up as it ever did.

    Kyoto had exactly what effect on CO2 levels for the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from taxpayers over its lifetime?

    Liars and thieves all.

  28. Andrew says:

    One thing that not mentioned is that the legislation for all this has yet to be written or even introduced to parliament. If it is voted into law it will then not come into effect until July 2012. This is a big if. Eleven months is an extremely long time in politics, some 330 24 hour news spin cycles.

    All it will take to destroy this tax is one major industrial player to withdraw from Australia with the attendant loss of jobs for us to have a labor party back-bench revolt and an election before then.

    Fortunately here in Australia we have a robust democracy that is being tested by our first real minority government. People are slowly coming to realisation that the Greens are really watermelons, and not an alternative government.

  29. tango says:

    the saddest thing with this hoax is what the schools are teaching our young children all the doomsday propaganda

  30. old44 says:

    While Juliar Gillard sat before the nation on Sunday stating the CARBON TAX would be set at $23/tonne, she neglected to explain the Treasury modelling on the effects of the tax was set at $20/tonne, was this a deliberate lie by someone who has form, or an inadvertent mistake? I know on which horse my money rides.

  31. Mark and two Cats says:

    Steve in SC said:
    July 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    > To prevent the camel’s nose under the tent from becoming the entire camel,
    > the camel must be shot.

    Shooting camels lowers CO2:

    http://tinyurl.com/5vunn7q

  32. Ric Werme says:

    Steve in SC says:
    July 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    > To prevent the camel’s nose under the tent from becoming the entire camel,
    the camel must be shot.

    Great metaphor! It’ll prevent a lot methane releases too.

  33. Shirley says:

    Aussies, have you no balls. It’s time for an “arab spring”, haul those eco-terrorists out and install a rational government. You voted in a party with no carbon taxes and it did a 180. Throw the bums out and throw them into a cold dark cell and let them rot there. You’ve been betrayed, you’ve been had. You are governed by those who you chose to do what they didn’t, so oust the commie bastards.

  34. Gary Hladik says:

    Ross says (July 10, 2011 at 2:41 pm): “I have supported the ALP all my life – they were once the party that represented workers, they provided Australia with many social policies without extremism and they were usually honest – as a working person they were the logical choice.”

    The more government can do FOR you, the more it can do TO you. Australians brought this on themselves by giving politicians so much control over their iives.

    I’m not casting stones; we’ve made the same mistake in the USA and especially here in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. It’s just so much easier to gambol in the sunshine and let the Morlocks handle everything…

  35. JackN says:

    Mike B,

    Sounds good, but the usual trap is greed.

    First thing I would do if I were an Aussie is find out who wrote this plan. Likely a coterie of people including international lawyers for a international law firm, former chief aides of parliamentary committees (like in US Congress, they are the ones who really know the ins and outs of these super-plans, and lobbyists associated with super-big enviro NGOs effectively working for Big Finance. Demand of Gillard et al. information of who actually wrote the bill. Every one. Hope this idea sounds good!

  36. Mark says:

    Roger Sowell says (at 1:41pm on 7/10/11) “As bad as this is, it seems better than the fiasco that California has with un-elected state agencies (primarily the Air Resources Board) forcing a cap-and-trade regulation on the state, rather than a carbon tax.”…..

    Roger I also happen to live in CA and I agree with you that it is unlikely that CA’s version of cap and trade (which was a legislative bill (AB32) signed off by our former Governor (Arnold S.) will be changed much if at all anytime soon. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was given the legislative authority to develop and implement the details of AB32. CARB was recently sued over the cap and trade plan – the courts said that they have to review alternative means to meet the goals of AB 32 (reduce CA’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050). Last week, or so, the legal process said that CARB can move forward with their cap and trade development work while they continue to review alternatives to cap and trade- i.e. a tax CO2.

    As you know we have a separate legislative mandate to have 33% of our electrical generation come from Renewable sources by 2020- we don’t get to count our large hydro or nuclear generation when we do the accounting by the way. A former chief of staff at the CPUC warned us that it will cost us about $200.00/MMTCO2 in 2020 to move from the 20%RES to the 33%RES. (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/13/2955810/state-should-look-before-it-leaps.html#none) CARB noted in a report last year (6/3/2010) that “The cost-effectiveness of the proposal is estimated to be about $200/MMTCO2E in 2020. (page ES-3)” So by my math ($200/23= 8.7) we are going to be paying 800% more for a ton of CO2 then the folks down under.

    In the near term I found out from PG&E today that yes they really did drop the price of my Tier 1,2,and 3 usage for a kwh during off peak times. I called PG&E with a question on my yearly True up bill- yes we pay our bill yearly as we have a 6.12 kw PV system, and a time of use net meter with PG&E , and that is how billing works when you have PV. The off peak price drop is a good thing for my wallet. Unfortunately they reduced my baseline quantity (actually they are cutting everyone’s baseline quantities by 10%) so I am not sure yet if I will be paying more of less for my monthly electrical usage. And yes, the cost for electrical energy is a bit high here in CA- Average price for an E-1 rate payer is currently $.18581 for PG&E customers. On the bright side of things if you happen to use a lot of electricity (Tier 4 and 5) and have an E-1 rate schedule your marginal price went down from .40 kwh to $.3418. For those interested in PG&E’s current and historical electrical prices the web link is here- http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/electric.shtml#RESELEC

  37. Mark and two Cats says:

    > Shooting camels lowers CO2:
    > http://tinyurl.com/5vunn7q

    Oops – should have said methane instead of CO2.

  38. DDP says:

    I can’t even watch ‘Home and Away’ on TV here in the UK these days without having the Oz green message/brain washing forced upon me. I dread to think what kids are taught in schools down under.

  39. brc says:

    Bruckner8 : no – that’s the whole point. The PM stood up before the last election, on TV and hand-on-heart said ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. And so she got returned to office, albeit with a minority coalition cobbled together with Greens and Independents. Had she confirmed a carbon tax as part of the plan, there is no way she would have been returned. As it was, the opposition fell short by as little as a couple of thousand votes. There was only 1 politician in the house of representatives that campaigned on a carbon tax platform.

    It doesn’t end there. For what must be the first time in history – we have a government proposing a tax that will cost $4b more to implement than it takes in for the first couple of years. Can you imagine if Obama got up, an announced a new wealth redistribution tax that will cost more money than it brings in? They can’t even manage and old-fashioned tax-grab properly. Their utter incompetence, lying and deception has create a red-hot anger out in the electorate. They are certain to be booted from office, and the legislation either repealed or substantially watered down. Yet they push ahead anyway. Why? Time will tell. Is it incompetence, vanity or back door deals? Corruption seems the only likely answer yet at the same time seems remote because of the naivety of the policies.

  40. gnomish says:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60

    Coal, Australian thermal coal Daily Price 122.45 usd/metric tonne

    “Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.”

    CO tax is 23 aus/ ton co2. aw – i bet they could have doubled the cost of coal and nobody would have done anything but mutter under his breath and make an occasional rude comment if he thought it safe.

    that’s a world class smash & grab! oz got pwn3d by the mungrels.

  41. Shirley says:

    Safari time, Aussies. Get Crocodile Dundee and go hunting. Very good varmint picking in your capital.

  42. Smokey says:

    Conniving politicians always find ways to separate the productive members of society from their earnings: click

  43. Jim, too. says:

    An indication of the money involved in the tax. Quantas alone ~$ 125 million in 2013…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/11/idUSWNAS256920110711

    Can you just begin to get a handle on the quantity of new tax money in the hands of the government and the wild spending on new programs to result? Do you think there is any opportunity for graft, corruption, skimming, fraud, abuse or cheating that could possibly result?

  44. KenB says:

    Shirley and others, Australians like to have pride in their country, we like to be known as a laid back gregarious mob, love our weekends, love our football and any other sport to either play and watch. Politically we are also laid back, know what we like and what we don’t like. We hate paying tax and relied upon looking after each other, mateship to do the right thing rather than get government involved. But slowly things have changed, we welcomed other cultures, endured their imported vendetta’s but hoped that the Australian “she’ll be right mate” attitude would suffice in changing the worst of those cultures and attitudes, our media was silenced, it had to stick to a politically correct (neutral) stance, meanwhile in our cities there were people teaching hate as a religion, and our universities were quietly taken over and fostered dissent, but only against authority and a cringe against our pride and culture – the left became the self appointed intelligent elite sipping a red wine in comfortable armchairs. How else can we explain how we have arrived at where we are – yes we were asleep at the wheel, just like the whole world of science has been asleep at the wheel of the good governance of science, lost in the name of political agenda. And it is hard to reclaim that honesty and purpose.

  45. Bush bunny says:

    Good letter to the editor, I send heaps, most are published. I thought Chris Huhn was under
    police investigation regarding speeding fines? We had a judge who did that and lied saying the person driving his car wasn’t him- she was already dead. He was jailed for a S70 fine. How come
    Canada, the US of A and China will not be renewing their Kyoto agreement 2012. Wind turbines
    I thought UK was trying to push some on Ireland? Maybe we anti-AGW should print T-Shirts
    with a pile of anthracite burning with the catch phrase ‘Burn baby – burn!’ LOL

  46. AusieDan says:

    The Australian political scene is much more complicated and sofisticated than many overseas commentators imagine.
    Julia Gillard is a surpurb political negotiator.
    She has sewn together sufficent parliamentary votes so that she is still in power after a year of walking on the high wire without any safety net.
    Now imagine yourself waking up this morning and finding that you are still the leader of your country, that both you and your party are very, very unpopular with voters and that this is your one and only opportunity to remain prime minister for at least until you go to bed tonight.
    She is not a socialist, an AGW supporter or any other type of issm, despite what here beliefs may have been when she was young.
    She is a desperate survivor and a surpurb negiator.
    She faces an opposition leader who has few of her skills but has a political killer instinct of the highest order.
    Tony Abbott is attacking Julia Gillard in her heartland in the workshops of the country where workers rightly fear for their jobs – not necessarily at the outset of this appearently mild tax imposition but throught the certain knowledge that it is designed to grow and grow until their carbon dioxide emitting factories are shut down.
    Julie is attempting to do the least damage to the economy that she can, while keeping the support of the Greens. If she survives until the next election, then she hopes the voters will reject both the Greens and tony Abbott’s conservative opposition and get a majority in her own right.
    This desperate plan may well not succeed, but it seems to her to be the best of a very few unpalatable alternatives.
    Tony Abbott is not a true believer.
    He is forced to act that way because of the complex political cum media scene.
    He is not a good actor.
    But he is a surpurb political attack machine.

    Puting apart the high cost of the damage being inflicted on our economy, this is a fascinating fight for a humble observer.
    (Appologies for typing & spelling – in haste)

  47. Bush bunny says:

    AussieDan: Just Google the Australian Fabian Society (Socialists) Gillard, Swan and Wong are
    paid up members, then look at their beliefs. She is a socialist. In my book the difference between
    socialism and communism is that a country can vote their socialist governments out.

  48. Ross says:

    It won’t matter – I think this will result in the demise of the Australian Labor Party (never did like that they dropped the U).

    Opinion seems to be running at about 83% opposed – no government can survive this.

    The Greens leader says he wants to shut down the coal industry while the coal miner’s union leader says this tax is a non-issue.

    I also predict major falls in union membership whilst the leadership remains supportive of the party line.

    My election prediction:-
    :- no Labor members in WA and NT – mining and cattle trade ban.
    :- maybe K Rudd and W Swan retain seats in Qld – no ALP member north of Brisbane – coal mining and cattle ban.
    :- NSW, Vic and SA – bigger anti Govt swings than NSW state election – betrayal and spin.
    :- Tas. – no discernable difference.

  49. Peter Miller says:

    Back in the good old days of Louis XVI, the French had a window tax, which resulted in a lot of unhealthy windowless buildings. Of course, this helped reduce energy waste, as more heat was retained internally.

    I am not sure if this is goofier than Australia’s current carbon tax proposals, but it must be getting close. Perhaps a window tax will come as part of their Phase 2 proposals for tackling a problem which does not exist.

  50. Andy says:

    Newspaper headline 2013 (Australia)
    Carbon pollution has not decreased. Govt has no option but to increase tax and include fuel.`

  51. Faustino says:

    Dr T G Watkins, I have to disagree with your assessment of Bob Hawke, a very good head of a very good government, to which I was an economic policy adviser. However, it’s been all downhill for the ALP since Keating first challenged Hawke.

  52. Peter Miller says:

    On behalf of all expensive and pointless bureaucrats everywhere, I welcome this new tax.

    This tax will require the employment of tens of thousands of people, who would be unemployable in the private sector, to implement. It gives me a warm feeling of well-being to realise that the new bureaucracy should replace at least 15% of the jobs lost elsewhere as a result of the new legislation, but that the payroll of jobs lost and jobs created will be approximately the same.

    I warmly applaud Julia Gillard for her brilliance and foresight in this magnificent act of job creation in the public sector and it is only fair the so called ‘tax payers’ should shoulder its cost. The benefits of this wonderful legislation are clear for all to see in that it will clearly reduce global temperature increases by at least 0.000002 degrees C over the next two decades.

    For those industries who do not like this legislation, I say “Go and good riddance to you”. How dare you spurn the will of the people – at least 20% of the electorate fully support this legislation and the rest are just ignorant trolls whose opinion do not matter.

    We need more professional politicians in power and I fully support the move to outlaw anyone with business experience or the so called ‘real world’ to ever again be allowed to hold high political office.

  53. John Marshall says:

    Come on Australia, Vote Gillard OUT. You know it makes sense.

  54. UK Sceptic says:

    Regress Australia Fair…

  55. Bob Long says:

    Nick Shaw says:
    July 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    “Ms. Forbes…”

    Easy to make that mistake. “Viv” in this case is the abbreviation of a male’s name.

  56. amicus curiae says:

    this snip is from a Nationals newsletter I received;

    And while the Prime Minister today announced an increase in the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000, what she didn’t trumpet is that she is also increasing the tax rate applying to lower income levels from 15 to 19 cents and from 30 to 33 cents – clawing back much of the assistance families can expect.

  57. RobertvdL says:

    I assume that most of us know it’s all a lie, and that it has nothing to do with the climate .It’s all about moving power from ,we the people ,to them , the elite. They will save us from all evil as long as we transfer all power to them Ones all power is in there hands there will be no justice no laws made by us the people Then we are slaves again. Be afaid be very afraid because they know who we are. We are already on there black list You remember ,

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    “An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland”.

    – Adolf Hitler, on creating the Gestapo

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/hitler-founded-the-department-of-homeland-security/

    STALIN, MAO, POL POT, KIM IL SUNG ADOLF HITLER wonderful people.

    The GESTAPO

    Don’t think it can’t happen again

    T SS A

    Ron Paul: The TSA Is Not Above The Law

  58. Mac the Knife says:

    If the camel gets his nose into the tent, you can bet the humps will follow…..

  59. Mac the Knife says:

    Peter Miller says:
    July 11, 2011 at 1:23 am

    “On behalf of all expensive and pointless bureaucrats everywhere, I welcome this new tax……
    We need more professional politicians in power and I fully support the move to outlaw anyone with business experience or the so called ‘real world’ to ever again be allowed to hold high political office.”

    Is that you, Mr. Obama?

  60. MostlyHarmless says:

    @DDP:
    “I dread to think what kids are taught in schools down under.”

    Our Minister for Education was formerly the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. I suspect our kids are being taught propaganda masquerading as science.

  61. Agnostic says:

    Here is an e-mail my father (a retired project engineer) received from Julia Gillard.

    “Dear Colin,

    The time has come to move from words to deeds – from a climate change debate to action on climate change.
    That’s why I have announced the Government’s plan for a clean energy future.
    Under our plan, five hundred big polluters will start paying $23 for every tonne of carbon from 1 July 2012. By 2020 this will cut pollution by 160 million tonnes.
    Some of the cost will flow to consumers, which is why we will provide nine in 10 households with permanent tax cuts, pension increases and higher family payments, plus 20 per cent extra for most lower-income households and pensioners.
    The carbon price will drive huge investments in clean technologies like solar, wind and geothermal – bringing $100 billion worth by 2050.
    Pricing carbon is a big change for our country, so please continue your activism and commitment because it has never been more important.
    Keep telling your friends and family about why climate action is so important for our environment and for creating the jobs of tomorrow.
    Make sure they get the facts by visiting our cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website where they can find details of the Government’s plan and what it means for them.
    Australians are a confident, creative people. Together we can build a brighter future for our nation.

    Julia”

    Here is his response:

    “Dear Julia,

    Thank you for your message below. As a self funded retiree I will happily receive whatever allowances your plan provides for me. However, I despair over the way your carbon tax issue has arisen. I guess it’s been driven by your perceived need to reduce Australian emissions of carbon dioxide. I think your conclusions are premature,

    I understand your perception that anthropomorphic emissions are causing global warming (AGW). But despite what your advisors say, the SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. It never is on any subject. In the case of climate science there is a lot of evidence that global temperatures have stopped rising (despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels) and that the impact of CO2 may not be as severe as the IPCC would have you believe.

    Before using the state of knowledge as it is currently known in order to make far reaching policy decisions, you need to carry out Due Diligence studies in order to verify that what you are being told is correct. The level of detail required to execute proper Due Diligence for something as complex as the dynamics of climate change is truly enormous. Peer review is not due diligence. Neither are the IPCC reports. Certainly not the Garnaut reports.

    Peer review of published papers is in general a coarse filter to ensure that if the evidence which the paper examines is valid and if the writers have done their sums correctly and if the results appear to make sense and add to the body of human knowledge then it’s OK to publish. Peer reviewers are unpaid experts in the same field as the writers of the paper. They seldom see all the basic data, the computer codes, the corrections, deletions and adjustments, the instrument calibration details, full details of all assumptions, etc, and their judgements are often coloured by their personal prejudices. Also they don’t get to see the experimental equipment and test environments or the actual samples that form the basis for the paper being reviewed. Usually none of this matters because scientific progress is self correcting. If a rocket scientist gets it wrong the rocket may crash or wander off course or fail in some other way. Oh dear, what a shame. Well, we’ll get it right next time round.

    Predicting climate change is not rocket science. It’s much, much more difficult. And the consequences of getting it wrong may be much, much more costly. So what do you do, given that there may be something happening that could cause humanity immense harm unless we change something? You conduct proper Due Diligence studies – engineering quality, not academician quality.

    You need to get the protagonists – those who claim we have a severe, looming problem – to assemble their best arguments and evidence to support their case. They should only offer papers which have been published with full public disclosure of all the data and computer codes so that the claims made within the paper can be reproduced by others. Then you appoint a Due Diligence Team (DDT) and give it a proper briefing (a Scope of Work). In the commercial world DDTs are usually independent disinterested contractors. They will need to see all of the things that peer reviewers usually don’t see as described above. In fact for proposals which will cost the community billions, the DDT will want to see a lot more. For example, many academic papers cite other previously published papers. These citations may have to be examined too. They will want to see the ‘bad’ data as well as the ‘good’. Also, published papers and other evidence may be invited for positions purporting to be contrary to the protagonists case. There is plenty of evidence which appears to throw doubt on many aspects of the IPCC case for climate change (the politically acceptable expression for AGW) and this will need to be subjected to DDT examination too.

    Unlike the authors of the IPCC reports who are nearly all climate scientists, the DDT should comprise physicists, economists, engineers, mathematicians (especially statisticians), geologists, biologists and climate scientists. But no more than 25% of the team should be climate scientists. It’s doubtful if the DDT will ever be able to achieve certainty on any matter but they should be able to come much closer to the truth than has the IPCC.

    Contrary to what you may have been told, the IPCC reports comprise the assessment by no more than 40 or 50 climate scientists, of all the published papers that in their opinion support in some way, climate change outside the realm of natural variation. Reviewers of each chapter in the reports were not permitted to see data which was not expressly provided in the relevant papers. In fact one reviewer was threatened with dismissal because he kept asking to see data. There is no audit trail for positions taken by authors of each chapter. None. In the business world, if a financier were asked to commit billions for some project on the basis of a report of the quality of any of the IPCC Assessment Reports he would tell you to “Go away – don’t waste my time”.

    I’m a retired engineer with a background in project management. Many of my peers agree with me about this.

    Colin”

  62. Brian H says:

    Leon Brozyna says:
    July 10, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    This is just the latest program of all too many brought to the unsuspecting public by the Good Intentions Paving Company. It is, of course and unfortunately, not limited to Australia.

    Amusingly, even when forced to acknowledge that Australia’s “reductions” will have minuscule or negligible effect on climate, it is justified as alternatively an inspiration to the Rest of the World to do likewise, or as trying to keep up with same (in doing the right thing, doncha know?).

    As Lindzen observed to Bolt, it’s really an attempt to make people WANT to give the gubmint more money. Nice scam, if you can sell it.

  63. Mark says:

    “Agnostic commented at 9:20 am (7/10/11)……………. ……”You conduct proper Due Diligence studies – engineering quality, not academician quality….” a response, “by Colin”, to a letter from Julia Gillard”

    A- Can your father please send his thoughts on Due Diligence to CARB, the CEC and the CPUC out here in CA!!!!!!!! I have been perplexed the last few years on the lack of Due Diligence, as described by your father, on how the process CARB has used to get agreement on the details of the 33%RES. It wasn’t till reading your post that the ah ha moment fell into place for me on what has been missing- the independent reviewers as part of the Due Diligence.

    Thanks for the post. I have saved it in my advocacy file. It will be interesting to see if Colin gets a response back from Ms. Gillard to his latest communication.

    Mark

  64. Brian H says:

    Agnostic;
    If your ol’ dad was, say, in Turnbull’s post, Australia would be immensely better off — maybe even saved!

    But if wishes were horses …

  65. Vince Causey says:

    Brian H,

    “As Lindzen observed to Bolt, it’s really an attempt to make people WANT to give the gubmint more money. Nice scam, if you can sell it.”

    And they just might succeed. In a recent experiment, a lady set herself up in the parking lot at a Californian shopping mall, with the task of selling ‘carbon offsets’ to gullible shoppers. Amazingly, the shoppers were falling over each other to give away as much money as was asked of them, in order to relieve the terrible guilt they suffered after being lectured on the size of the carbon footprints their purchases had inflicted on the poor planet. One shopper insisted on giving even more than was asked.

    Carbon tax to offset guilt? It’s a shoe in.

  66. bushbunny says:

    What is worrying is the amount of investment of people’s pensions in carbon trading and when that goes belly up then so will their superannuation.(Like the BBC has done, no wonder they support AGW). No wonder governments are walking on thin ice, and our government has jumped in boots and all, despite the warning ‘Beware thin ice ahead?’ Teaching children the wrong science/history is something they do in dictatorships. Next thing they will be removing the picture of Queen Elizabeth from the walls of public offices and putting up one of Julia Gillard or Al Gore? LOL. It’s almost worse than the many complaints given by creationists that evolution is wrong. One’s religious dogma and the other science. The two don’t always agree. But to insist only one be taught is guaranteeing indoctrination of evil intent in my mind. What is also worrying is that at one Coalition rally one man suggested we take up arms against the government. Mind you he was not agreed with, but you can see the other side of the coin, when the dictators start finding that there is opposition they try to qualify their stance by inducing violence in the community. Often seeded by themselves to discredit their opponents or frighten off those who are telling the truth. We must keep an international effort to make this AGW and the control of the UN IPCC over
    climate change funding to be ridiculed. I see Congress has voted against providing any more funds to the UN Climate change fund. Good, wish Australia would do the same. It’s a giant rip off that some countries are taking advantage of by claiming developed countries are creating adverse environmental damage via climate change to their country. And controlled by the UN?

Comments are closed.