Carbon Trading: on in Australia, off in New Hampshire

Julia Gillard Picture
PM Julia Gillard - Image via Wikipedia

Australia appears to be ready to run down the Carbon Rabbit Hole, from the WUWT Tips and Notes page

Richard says:

A PRICE is set to be put on carbon from July 1, 2012, under a deal announced today by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Ms Gillard has announced a two-stage process for pricing carbon, which will start with a fixed price period for three to five years and then shift to an emissions trading scheme with a “flexible” price linked to international carbon markets.

Ms Gillard said that the new deal would be the “cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build clean energy economies”.

She said she didn’t believe Australia needed to lead the world on the matter, but added it couldn’t be left behind.

Ms Gillard said she anticipated that the Opposition would “launch a fear campaign” on a “great big new tax”, but said she would “not take a step back” on the issue.


pat says:

The quickest “consensus” evah! and all in the name of “climate change” with never a mention of AGW:

24 Feb: ABC: Gillard to lay out carbon price policy

In the aftermath of last year’s election, Ms Gillard established a multi-party climate change committee to build consensus on what form a carbon price should take.

The ABC understands the committee has now come to an agreement and Ms Gillard will reveal more details at 11:30am AEDT…

The Government abandoned its previous emissions trading scheme last year after it failed to get it through the Senate.

This backdown is widely believed to have led to former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s slide in the polls, and his eventual sacking…

fyi, the former PM’s sacking is not “widely believed” to have been sacked over his failure to get an ETS through; in fact, the Opposition leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, lost his job for backing such a scheme. also note no member of the main Opposition party sat on the “multi-party” committee, and the Opposition is leading the incumbent party in the polls at present. our present Prime Minister promised there would be no carbon price if she was voted in and changed her mind the second she got in. plus the following is from just six days ago!

18 Feb: ABC: Carbon price deal is months away

The Government’s multi-party climate change committee, which is chaired by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and includes the Greens and independent MPs, held its fourth meeting in Canberra this morning.

Ms Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet were widely expected to unveil their preferred model after the meeting.

But the committee says no final decisions have been taken on how to price carbon or what assistance will be offered to industry and taxpayers.

It says the final design of the carbon price will only be decided when all the elements of the policy can be considered together, and that should happen in the coming months.


Ric Werme writes about New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire House has passed a bill that would have NH withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Next step is Senate (maybe a stop at a Finance committee, and then the Governor. He may well veto it, but the house passed it 246 to 104. The senate will like pass it by a veto proof majority too.

All in all, looking promising!

RGGI was supposed to segue directly into a national cap-and-trade system, and was designed by Lisa Jackson, now EPA administrator, when she ran New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. The pitch to industry was that they could get a head start on buying cap-and-trade permits for two or three dollars each, and make a fortune when a federal bill passed with permit prices ten times that or higher. Now that a federal bill is dead, RGGI is a lose-lose for everyone except the politicians who get to spend the money and the special interests receiving subsidies.

The overwhelming veto-proof, bipartisan vote today means that New Hampshire is now on a path to doing something that looked impossible just a couple years ago — repeal a cap-and-trade program. In the process, it could deal the death blow to cap and trade both regionally and nationally.

While RGGI can survive the loss of a small state like New Hampshire, it could probably not survive the loss of a large state like New Jersey, where a repeal effort is picking up steam fast, with at least 37 co-sponsors.

Data to be collected by Glory will help scientists improve our ability to predict Earth’s future environment and to distinguish human-induced climate change from natural climate variability.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian H
February 24, 2011 12:12 am

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

Mike Haseler
February 24, 2011 12:12 am

Do Australians: always arrive at the party ready to start partying after it is over?
Which century are they living in?
The 20th century of climate scare or the 21st century of climate realism?
there’ll be a politician who’ll regret to recall The polkas they danced at Euabalong Ball

Brian H
February 24, 2011 12:14 am

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

Layne Blanchard
February 24, 2011 12:20 am

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

February 24, 2011 12:25 am

No link to Mann’s page at Penn what is happening

Michael in Sydney
February 24, 2011 12:30 am

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

February 24, 2011 12:37 am

If the Socialist/Green alliance so much concern about energy consumption way they not put a limit to appliances/events?
-maximum TV size/limit-per-day 2h
-maximum car(engine) size
-allowance for air travel
-temperature gradient for the “commoners” house
-big sport events/person/country/society
Way tax energy, if they want to go back to the cave? Labor/Green could order society to forget progress, and go back to hunter-gatherer. Nobel-savage…
Energy cost already high, if they (Political Left) want to tax it, then they after the money, not the philosophical consequences.

kbray in california
February 24, 2011 12:37 am

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

February 24, 2011 12:37 am

Australia tertiary education sector has been performing very poorly for years now (used to be one of the best).. this is the result… you have a large percentage of the population with lower levels of maths, science etc and cannot assess data properly. My view for what its worth…

February 24, 2011 12:45 am

Ill take my last statement back now.. apprently ONLY 30% of Australians believe in AGW
what a farce this cannot possibly get through

Andy G
February 24, 2011 12:48 am

Much as I think Abbott is a total ……..
And I have been a Laobor voter up until now.
Next election, I vote Libs IF they promise to repeal this idiocy.

Les Francis
February 24, 2011 12:49 am

This tax has nothing to do with the environment.
Gillard’s Labor government is running the economy into the ground.
Storm clouds and thunder are descending on the economy.
Australia is in the throws of two national disasters – well really one as the cause of both is related. The Queensland cyclones turned into Victorian Floods. There are Billions of dollars required to rebuild Government infrastructure damaged by floods and cyclones.
The Government has foolishly committed itself to build an Australia white white elephant broadband network at the cost of between 40 – 50 billion dollars.
In just a couple of years Gillard and her predecessor KRudd have quickly taken a large Federal government surplus into a huge deficit.
The bright outlook is that Gillard will allegedly be introducing this tax as of July 2012. There is more than 70% chance her and her government will not last out this year. She certainly won’t make it to June next year.

David Palmer
February 24, 2011 12:58 am

Don’t get too excited over Gillard’s announcement – none of the details decided.
It will all fall apart as Roger Pielke’ Jr’s iron law of climate change = revolt by enraged citizenry.

February 24, 2011 1:13 am

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

February 24, 2011 1:18 am

So that gives the Aussies a year to get themselves moving actively against the carbon pricing. I hope they manage to avoid it, or else their wonderful country will be going down the pan.

kbray in california
February 24, 2011 1:19 am

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

February 24, 2011 1:19 am

I currently by 25% renewable energy. If they succeed in bringing this in, I shall stop. My choice, to buy renewable, has some chance of being used to do so. Their enforced model will only benefit the Gores of the world.
I shall also make it my mission to avoid paying the same amount of income tax as this will be costing me, even if that costs me the same amount in accountancy fees. Far better to have wealthier accountants than wealthier Gores.

February 24, 2011 1:21 am

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

Baa Humbug
February 24, 2011 1:22 am

Don’t panic yet about Gillards tax folks.
This woman IS for turning, as she has amply demonstrated thus far.
The tax was announced now because of the Christchurch earthquake dominating the news cycle.
The opposition will start quoting how much extra goods and services will cost, the public op polls will go against Gillard and she will turn.
It’s a cycle, just like the climate.

February 24, 2011 1:32 am

Mann’s home page is at
Nothing has happened.

February 24, 2011 2:05 am

This woman actually said today in justifying the imposition of a carbon tax: “I believe Australians are persuaded of the science of climate change. The science is in and they want to see us get on with it.”
Where have they been these characters? How can we demonstrate that the sources that they are relying on are dissembling?
Source of quote:

February 24, 2011 2:08 am

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

February 24, 2011 2:13 am

Layne Blanchard says:
February 24, 2011 at 12:20 am
“The world is filled with nicely dressed idiots, masquerading as leaders.”
They aren’t that smart, Layne.
I hit mute on my TV controller every time I see Dillard. Same with the TV weather girl who is masquerading as a State premier here in Queensland.

February 24, 2011 2:14 am

I am deeply embarrassed to be an Australian.

February 24, 2011 2:17 am

Just yesterday a galaxy poll revealed only a third of Australians believe “The world is warming and man’s emissions are to blame”
This after the now PM made the solemn promise during the election campaign on 17 August 2010 that “s Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ”There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,”
We have a Government driven by the AGW carpet baggers, beholden to a Greens senator for power and with a record of utter incompetence with a raft of ‘green bling’ that have achieved more in emptying our wallets than saving the planet.
We have a Climate change department of 400 that has done nothing for 3 years!
And its just been revealed that the PM, in the midst of all this, hadn’t spoken to the Governments own chief scientist (and she a staunch AGW believer) for nearly 2 years.
Already increased costs for electricity are hitting households. This has little hope of ever eventuating.

Don Keiller
February 24, 2011 2:17 am

Gillard clearly demonstrates that light travels faster than sound.
She appears bright until you hear her speak.

February 24, 2011 2:28 am

Depressing. Still, there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip. We were almost at the point of copping a particularly obnoxious cap and trade scheme a few years ago, when shenanigans in the Senate, ironically Greens who thought it wasn’t hard line enough, killed it.
I know from personal contacts that there are quite a few Labor MPs who think this is a terrible policy. Trouble is, the Greens hold the balance of power. There is no spoon long enough to make supping with this lot safe.
People don’t yet grasp the implications of this proposal, for consumer prices and the economy as a whole. As they are teased out, I expect that community support for it will plummet. I also think that privately the Government would be delighted if there was a way out which could be blamed on someone else.

February 24, 2011 2:30 am

…shift to an emissions trading scheme with a “flexible” price linked to international carbon markets.
Link to what, exactly? The carbon market in the US has closed its door and the one in the EU has been suspended because of major fraud. It seems doesn’t Gillard actually follow current affairs that have a profound effect on her lunatic policies so where is the dizzy bint at?

February 24, 2011 2:43 am

Sorry everyone. Australia’s unhappy being a 1st-World nation so we’re going to quickly drop ourselves down to 2nd-World status.
After that, when the Watermelons take over, we’ll shoot through 3rd-World status quick smart and be living the perfect 21st century hippy agrarian lifestyle.
insert deity here help us…

Geoff Larsen
February 24, 2011 2:44 am

When Gillard campaigned for the Federal election in Aug 2011 she said: –
“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.
So out of 150 of the House of Representatives who were elected, only one, a Green, Adam Brandt, campaigned for a carbon tax over the term of this parliament.
Do you believe this?

Chris in Hervey Bay
February 24, 2011 2:45 am

I cannot believe so called intelligent people would make a decision on the welfare of our country based on such flimsy evidence.
What sane person would bet their house and all their possessions on a weather prediction 100 years out??

Paul R
February 24, 2011 2:49 am

Congratulations to Prime Minister Brown and his ALP poodles, they finally figured out that a mandate is not needed in a deception, just a consensus among peers is required when you’re masters of the universe.
At the end of the day it’s just another tax for the relatively wealthy people of Australia to endure but I’m afraid it marks a small victory in the larger war these creatures are waging against humanity.

Adam (Just out of Newcastle...)
February 24, 2011 2:51 am

It disappoints me to say this… but our country is run by Traitors.

February 24, 2011 2:54 am

It should be noted that she categorically promised that there would be no carbon tax in any government she leads. Her deputy stated that claims they would bring in a carbon tax were hysterical.
Their promises are worthless.

Cliff Huston
February 24, 2011 3:01 am

“No link to Mann’s page at Penn what is happening
Try this link:

February 24, 2011 3:19 am

Even though it was fully reuted 2 weeks ago by a prominent economist, Henry Ergas, the Prime Minister is still using the TV grab that the cost of a carbon tax is less than the cost of inaction. Ergas blew that up spectacularly but his explanation required some concentration. Concentration our Prime Minister does not have because her attention span is fully used up by a 30 second TV grab.
2ndly, this is the reversal of proof. She can make any claim and you have to disprove it. She could claim she only had one personality in her head but could she prove it? ( A bit of dry humor). She is on record as proclaiming simply and directly that there would be no carbon tax in any government she leads. I wonder she can sit still with combustible trousers.

February 24, 2011 3:23 am

Although she claimed that the Liberal Party’s opposition to the tax was based on a ‘scare campaign’ about prices of goods and services skyrocketing, when asked whether prices would increase, she said “Well that’s the idea isn’t it?”.
She’s going to kill off the economy of one of the worlds most prosperous countries.
The Greens who want to push the country back to the stone age, are happy to help.

February 24, 2011 3:59 am

However, Australia still has one big advantage over US: the parliamentary system. You can remove a bad government quickly when needed. America has no way to do a No Confidence Vote or call an immediate election.

Coach Springer
February 24, 2011 3:59 am

Sitting in Chicago, I can think of another fear. That this turns out to be only incrementally bad and the do-gooders of the day and rent seekers develop a whole lot more trading schemes to raise the cost of other “undesirable” products and behaviors. The Gores and their Enrons and Goldman Sachses are out there. You know, frog boiling time. (We’re the frogs.)

February 24, 2011 4:04 am

Viewed from afar (the UK) – I find Julia Gillard VERY SCARY….

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:06 am

“UK Sceptic says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:30 am”
There’s the NZ ETS. Not sure who they are trading with.
“Andy G says:
February 24, 2011 at 12:48 am”
In Aus, it matters not who you vote for. They are all in it for the cash flow.
Personally, I don’t support a “carbon” tax, whatever the hell that is. S. Bob Brown is on record during the elction campaing saying that “..If we want transport, roads, hospitals and schools etc etc…” “then a carbon tax would pay for that”. Now, my question is what are our current taxes being used for? Lets have a “carbon” tax, which is a consumption tax after all, which replaces ALL other taxes. I’d go with that.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:11 am

“Adam (Just out of Newcastle…) says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:51 am”
Yet people still vote (Ok, its compulsory to REGISTER to vote, not vote itself, in Aus. And I have committed a crime by posting this).
What amazes me the number of people who trust/believe politicians and what they say. Haven’t you learned yet? The literal translation from Greek words which form the English word “politician” almost literally translates to “lie to the people”.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 4:15 am

Now, with the proposed carbon tax, it is now the responsibilty of the Gillard Govn’t to prove “carbon” (By which they mean to be Co2) IS damaging the planet, IS driving climate change in a catastrophic maner. So far, all I have seen is computer animations.

February 24, 2011 4:21 am

Re SideShowBob, rising cost in oil prices always works its way uphill to food and all other products because they require energy to produce. The price of petrol is just the first and most immediate consequence and I wouldn’t think that Europeans would be exempt unless those governments have a handy-dandy way of reducing petrol taxes on an oil price increase. Unfortunately, wages are always slow to catch up and the people at the bottom are the most effected economically. Oil price and unnecessary carbon tax increases lower the standard of living for almost everyone except the very well to do.

February 24, 2011 4:31 am

If I was the opposition I would be running ad’s showing that the government was coming for everybody’s SUV’s.I would think it would have the same effect as running ad’s on US TV saying the government was coming for their guns.
Maybe an ad showing a hyundi gets being pulled backwards down the boat ramp by a 12ft tinnie.:-)

February 24, 2011 4:43 am

SideShowBob, while a carbon tax might encourage people to buy smaller cars it has other consequences. Having a tax on oil (which our carbon tax here in Ireland is) hits everyone. It affects people trying to heat their homes-a woman froze to death this winter in Ireland as she couldn’t afford to heat her house. It affects business because diesel prices have also shot up in the last couple of years since our carbon tax was brought in-hence transport costs increase. It affects tourism-people are less inclined to travel around their own country if petrol prices are too high. At the moment ~65% of what I pay for petrol goes to the government in tax. Oil is not a luxury item & most people have little choice but to use it. Only when a truly viable alternative is available might high taxes on oil might make sense.

February 24, 2011 4:46 am

SideShowBob, it might be a good idea to reference which nation you are talking about. The Oz .gov already gets $16B in fuel tax as well as $68.3B in “Resource and Petroleum Rent Tax”. This makes up about 1/4 of the total tax income for the Australian Federal Government.
I’d say we already have a “fuel tax”, wouldn’t you?

amicus curiae
February 24, 2011 4:52 am

I used less power than in winter, I have no elec heating or aircon, and yet?
my bill is up 40 for this quarter withpout the carbon con being added.
fuels at near 1.40 a litre now..
I suspect if Aussies hadn’t handed our guns in they’d be thinking more carefully about how the populace is going to take this!
still we DO have rope:-)
seriously the womans an idiot! in good company with brown and the rest of the agw converts.

February 24, 2011 5:07 am

I thought we’d escaped this lunacy after the demise of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard’s election promise that she would not introduce a carbon tax. However I don’t think people are as ill-informed or as gullible as she obviously believes. This will surely be her undoing.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 5:08 am

“David says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:04 am”
Born in Wales, migrated to Aus at 4. Into polotics (Backstabing) from an early age apparently.
“amicus curiae says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:52 am”
No idiot at all. A cunning politician. Shame on the people, who put her there (Fools), don’t matter to “her, moving forward”.

Robert of Ottawa
February 24, 2011 5:12 am

SideShowBob says @ February 24, 2011 at 1:21 am
Ultimately a fuel tax is a good thing I think in this day and age… it’ll help persuade people to choose more efficient products.
Yes, Bob, and a food tax to combat obescity …. brilliant!

February 24, 2011 5:14 am

kbray in california says:
February 24, 2011 at 1:19 am
Some of Ms. Gillard’s (et al) statements:
Mr Windsor (another govt. leader) said he believed something should be done about climate change globally and indicated his vote would be influenced by what action was being taken outside Australia.
Tony Windsor is not a ‘government leader’. He is an independent, one of 3 (2 independent and one Green) who hold the balance of power in the lower House, and hence the government to ransom.
After 1 July, the Greens will hold the b.o.p. in the Senate as well. That is why the country is being lumbered with these stupid policies. If the conservatives were in the driver’s seat, they would have exactly the same problem. The only way to change it is for the government to call a double dissolution (ie of both Houses) and hope that the electorate will deliver one party or the other a convincing majority. Since that means risking losing power, they are reluctant to do that. So, for the moment, we are stuck.
However, the Australian public tends to be pragmatic rather than ideological, so the months ahead will be interesting. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the Labor MPs and Senators who think this policy is rubbish will cross the floor to defeat it. Watch this space.

February 24, 2011 5:20 am

Crikey! they are pushing this through even faster since the move to have the Auditor General audit the Temperature record.

Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2011 5:20 am

Though not a done deal yet, I’m proud to be a New Hampsherite right now. We hold the first primary here, with an excellent track record for picking winners. If RGGI goes down in this state, and a chain reaction occurs, ultimately destroying the program altogether, that would be huge. We are, after all, the “Live free or die” state.
Lynch, of course will probably veto it, assuming it makes it through the Senate. This could be a big fight, with both regional and national implications. Lynch is currently opposing it on economic grounds, but we’ll see how long that lasts. From the Concord Monitor:
“Lynch said yesterday that he opposes the withdrawal because it will result in New Hampshire ratepayers paying higher costs for electricity without receiving any benefits. Because electricity is sold regionally, New Hampshire ratepayers would still have to pay the higher rates even if the state withdrew, but it would not get money back for energy-efficiency projects.”

February 24, 2011 5:27 am

Gee, I feels like people consider Oz more important than NH! (Just New Hampshire, not the Northern Hemisphere.) Ah well, I agree too, at least given the current state of climate politics.
I’ll likely come up with a simple web page to track progress of RGGI legislation and related stuff and mention it occasionally here as warranted.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 5:33 am

“Steve says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:43 am”
When did the Irish Govn’t end free coal (For pensioners)?

February 24, 2011 5:56 am

Wonder what price the Gillard government will ‘fix’ carbon at for the next five years..?
Same as the Chicago one before it went down the toilet – 5c/tonne..?
Can’t see how it can be anything else – as the EU market is still suspended due to fraud (unless of course she wants to invite all the fraudsters in Eastern Europe to rub their hands with glee…)..

Frank K.
February 24, 2011 5:59 am

Proud New Hampshire citizen here…thankful my state government is leading the way in removing the insane burdens imposed by our climate elites…

February 24, 2011 6:08 am

Carbon trading can be such fun in the abstract. I can still remember former Vice President ALGORE rationalizng his extravagent life-style by reminding a reporter that he purchased carbon offsets. Bingo! The wealthy can just write a check. Of course his huge carbon footprint remains floating somewhere in the ether. I think it was at that point 2 years ago that Joe Sixpack woke up to the scam. Wealthy entertainers from DiCaprio to Cate Blanchett could fly in thier Learjets, live in 15000sq ft McMansions, and drive $400,000 foreign sports cars in good conscience. But what about the family of 5 living in a 1500sq ft bungalow and making ends meet on $40,000 a year?

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 6:09 am

“Saaad says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:07 am”
Its called democarcy…..once every few years! Sadly the “few” “win”.

Charles Nelson
February 24, 2011 6:38 am

I love Australia and it’s people (it’s my home) so it pains me to have to say this…but here goes anyway; no other nation has been subjected to such a concerted, determined and well organized propaganda campaign. Compared to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the BBC sounds like a bastion of even handed common sense on the subject of AGW.
I think I know why too. The ‘Green’ movement here has deep roots, and to be fair to all concerned, being ‘green’ is the closest thing there is here to true patriotism and love of country. Who in their right mind could give their alleigance to a venal, corrupt political class, or a remote vaguely degenerate English Royal family?
Unfortunately for the Australian people this fundamentally honourable inclination was hijacked by the Global Warming fraudsters…and again given the vast, slow climatic cycles that Australia is subject to, it was an easy sell. After fourteen years of increasing drought it wasn’t hard to convince people that climate change was real. Of course the cycles have turned now and most people have realised that this beautiful and bountiful land is not at any ‘tipping point’ or on the verge of calamity.
Let’s hope we have time to stop this taxation insanity and then weed out the scum (and I mean that) who have lied and dissembled for so long, for money and self aggrandisement. Let’s hold them to account, it shouldn’t be difficult, they are on the record.

R. de Haan
February 24, 2011 6:45 am

The Communists lost the Cold War.
They are committed to win the Hot War.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a convinced Communist.

February 24, 2011 6:53 am

In certain circumstances, I do believe it is possible to judge a book by its cover, especially after glancing at the first few pages.
C,mon, Australia, any okka is way better than that.

Henry chance
February 24, 2011 7:19 am

Australia feels guilty at having so many minerals and so much to export. A tax or penance will make them feel all better.
BHP just spend 4.5 billion in US for Natural gas. (Pelosi says gas is not a fossil fuel)

February 24, 2011 7:21 am

Meanwhile in Hampshire UK the Huhnatic has his wind folly free power base, but has other ideas for the rest of the UK….

February 24, 2011 7:27 am

@ Steve
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products. Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue … I mean Christ where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!
Look energy prices are going up that’s a fact and – they’ll keep going up because of peak oil – because our energy use is unsustainable do you understand? Is that fact sinking through to people yet or do we need $140 priced oil again?

February 24, 2011 7:36 am

I was wondering if anyone in Oz has done a little digging into this woman’s connections and relationships and how those around her, if not herself, will benefit from this idiocy?
As far as taxing gas/oil to push people to alternatives, what alternatives? Nothing out there is economically viable except gas/oil and until oil truly becomes far more expensive, not by government taxation/regulation, to extract and refine there will not be any viable alternative and having the government try and push people away from the cheapest source of energy does nothing but induce pain(economic) and hardship. Where there no lesson learned form the US governments misguided foray into the housing market? When the government intervenes, problems that would be small, relatively, and short lived become massive and longer lived. Look into how the US fared during the Great Depression. Check the Japanese “Lost Decade.” Heck, just look at the U.S.’s current inability to get out of this recession.(Regardless of what the “experts” say, this recession isn’t over.) People want alternative sources to gas/oil, then get the government out of the way and allow the market to decided what the next great source of energy will be for the populace, rather than have the government pick who wins and who loses, because when that happens we all lose.

DD More
February 24, 2011 7:46 am

Gee can one sell you Aussie’s some of the $0.05/ton CCX credits that went on sale in Chicago a while back for a big profit?

Vince Causey
February 24, 2011 8:00 am

SideShowBob says @ February 24, 2011 at 1:21 am
“Ultimately a fuel tax is a good thing I think in this day and age… it’ll help persuade people to choose more efficient products.”
And persuade manufacturing to relocate to where energy is cheaper, like China, where the state actually has a fuel subsidy.
Do we really want governments deciding how efficient appliances should be, by way of energy taxes? A market economy uses price signals to govern the way it uses resources. As for the comment that if oil reaches $200 per bbl it will somehow be worse for the US than Europe despite the fact that the ticket price in Europe will be higher than in the US

Vince Causey
February 24, 2011 8:04 am

…As for the comment that if oil reaches $200 per bbl it will somehow be worse for the US than Europe despite the fact that the ticket price in Europe will be higher than in the US, I cannot follow the logic. Perhaps you suggest that price rise in the US would be proportionately more than in Europe, and that is what will hurt. It would be a short term shock, but in the long term, the Europeans would suffer far more as they would be forced to divert a larger proportion of their income into energy.

Steve in SC
February 24, 2011 8:30 am

Is it just me or does this woman bear a striking resemblance to Nancy Pelosi?????????

February 24, 2011 8:42 am

Sheer obstinate stupidity.A contrived carbon scheme to be followed by an international market in a non-existent product,ie, the non-production of goods or energy. Insanity.

Mike Haseler
February 24, 2011 8:50 am

Patrick Davis says: February 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
“Haven’t you learned yet? The literal translation from Greek words which form the English word “politician” almost literally translates to “lie to the people”.”
That would make sense … after all who is it that keeps telling us that “democracy is the free choice of which politicians are to lord it over us” (I paraphrase)
What democracy really means, is not having politicians but literally having ordinary people in power:
“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,”(Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b)
The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality (isonomia=democracy), and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public. (Herodotus)
What these show very clearly is that selection by lot was considered democratic, showing that democracy referred to system of committees, selected by lot which ran Athens. Elections were clearly considered anti-democratic, so politicians are undemocratic!
which takes us nicely back to your statement:
“The literal translation from Greek words which form the English word “politician” almost literally translates to “lie to the people”.”

kbray in california
February 24, 2011 9:01 am

[[ kbray in california says:
February 24, 2011 at 1:19 am
Some of Ms. Gillard’s (et al) statements: ]]
Below is the link to the article that I neglected to include in my original comment edit…
Hope you Aussies can move this proposal to the circular file again.

February 24, 2011 9:31 am

SideShowBob says @ February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
“@ Steve
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products. Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue … I mean Christ where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!”
So many things wrong with this…
“… making people choose …”: it’s not a choice if the government is making us choose the “more efficient product”.
“more efficient products”: they are “more efficient” because the tax forces oil/coal/gas to be more expensive than the subsidized alternatives. The alternative energy products are not more efficient and won’t be for decades or maybe centuries.
“Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue.”: redistribution of my money via government fiat, yeah we all want that (sarc.). Plus we are trusting the government to decide and distribute. Nicely thought out, comrade SideShowBob.
“… where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!”: Yes.

February 24, 2011 9:45 am

Frank K. says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:59 am
I am also a proud NH citizen who has been on my representatives’ tails through this process.
Just a small state? I prefer “bellwether” state.
And though few historians know, New Hampshire sent more men to the famous 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill than all other states combined. That’s just one of NH’s little-known contributions to the American Revolution.
ALSO, the At the urging of Paul Revere, hundreds of locals raided the King’s fort at New Castle Island (Portsmouth) in December 1774 (Fort William and Mary). It was the start of the American Revolution. NOT Lexington and Concord, although this latter was noteworthy because revolutionaries were killed there. The Newmarket Militia from Seacoast New Hampshire carried out the operation at Portsmouth. Lexington and Concord followed four months later in 1775.
Just a small state???
The colonial attack on the British Fort followed a warning by Paul Revere who had arrived in Portsmouth, NH the day before. The gunpowder stolen during the raid was reportedly used at the famous Battle of Bunker Hill in Massachusetts, nearby. Among the leaders of the raid were John Langdon and John Sullivan, both of whom became early governors of New Hampshire. Soon after the raid, the last British governor, John Wentworth was driven out of New Hampshire to Nova Scotia.
More importantly, Portsmouth harbor was strategically critical. The British had planned to send fleets with thousands of soldiers to the harbor and march them the short distance to Boston to quench the growing rebellion. The Fort was never relinquished, and the British had to reinforce in other ways, with much delay, for the duration of the War.
Just a small state???
Another contribution? Our Representatives and Senators each get $100 PER YEAR for serving. They are truly servants of the people here. New Hampshire has the third largest legislative body in the English-speaking world. Only the US House of Representatives and the British Parliament have more representatives than New Hampshire. We pride ourselves on our “citizen” legislature as the 400 members of our House of Representatives and the 24 Senators receive a salary of only $100.00 per year. The New Hampshire Governor and Council form of government has stood the test of time. It is by far the most unique and open form of state government in our nation. The New Hampshire Executive Council holds the distinction of being the first and the last of its kind in the nation. It is a vestige of the Colonial era and a public reminder of the continuing indication of the basic distrust Granite State citizens have for dictatorial government.
New Hampshire is the Only State with an Executive Council. New Hampshire’s Governor and Council (5 Members, Sununu is one) combination has become without equal in the nation. This sharing of executive authority, as a curb on autocracy, was once popular throughout New England but now it continues in full force only in the Granite State.
New Hampshire’s Governor and Council, all elected by the people, has become the most democratic form of executive government in the nation, or elsewhere in the world. All state business, as ordered and ordained by the Legislature, is voted in public, and no other state enjoys such open accountability between its Executive Department and its citizens.
For more on New Hampshire’s unique governance, see:
Small state? Or the Live Free Or Die State? It was not the first state, but the only state to keep the founding principles.

George Tetley
February 24, 2011 9:49 am

I work and live in Germany ( not easy ) I think that the money I earn is mine to decide how I spend it ! I drive a car that weighs nearly 2 tonnes and has a 585 hp engine, I can, here in Germany, legally do speeds of over 250 km/h on the autobahn , a small puddle jumper is not a means of transport to ensure a healthy existence, and at that speed (250 km/h ) I have been passed like I was standing still.

February 24, 2011 10:10 am

This is good news for industry all over the world – except in Oz where outsourcing will become the new norm. They are too busy building a nation of burger flippers.

Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2011 10:26 am

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products.
There is nothing stopping people from choosing “more efficient” (which is GreenieSpeak for “smaller, and does less work, so it will take longer and probably do a cr@ppy job, but so what, you are “saving the planet”) products now, so that’s just a red herring.

ferd berple
February 24, 2011 10:44 am

” I do support a progressive taxation system that supports a welfare state”
Carbon taxes are more likely recessive, because the poor pay a greater portion of their income on energy than do the rich. Often the rich can deduct the taxes as business expenses, while the poor have no such deductions.
For example, as an employee, if you drive a car to work, can you deduct the cost of the car and fuel? In many place you cannot. However, if you own the business the company car and the fuel it uses are very likely deductible expenses. Any carbon tax you pay will simply be tax deductible from income.
If there is any net tax to business, then all businesses will raise their prices slightly, or go out of business, and in the end the employees of those businesses will pay extra tax through higher prices of loss of employment. There is no free lunch.

February 24, 2011 10:46 am

“C,mon, Australia, any okka is way better than that.

You gotta admire the effort put into describing ‘okka’, whatever that is. Anyway, while you’re at the urban dictionary don’t forget to check ‘ocker’.

Lady Life Grows
February 24, 2011 10:50 am

You Aussies had better do something more than complain about the price tag of this tax, enormous though it will be.
You better tell people what the current 12 degree C average temperature means to crops and what the future really holds if temps do rise. Have a farmer shvering in Spring weather saying this is NOT optimum and warmer would be better.
And then get vicious–the greenies are. Show those rioting Arabs and Africans wanting FOOD prices to drop and tell the people what this nonsense is REALLY doing. So-called greens are black murderers (black as in the color of dead vegetation). Show pics of children starving and dying from nonsense like this.
Our enemies play hardball. It is time we did. Because this is the truth.

Josh Grella
February 24, 2011 11:02 am

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
Wow, you’re so right. I mean, it’s obviously peak oil time. no one has found any untapped sources of oil for well over a century now. How foolish of all of us to expect the government to allow us to make our own choices… /sarc off
We have plenty of oil to use if we just stop the BS that is preventing us from getting it out of the ground and refining it. That is the problem. By some estimates, if we had starting drilling for oil on our own soil in the 70’s and opened several more refineries, we’d be paying $1 or less per gallon right now. That’s not a peak oil problem or an unsustainable problem. It’s a greenie imposed supply problem that forces us to get oil from other countries. Educate yourself a little more before trying to sell your snake oil on this site.

February 24, 2011 11:16 am

Gillard confirms: she lied about about no carbon tax
Seems like this is how democrats and liberals are getting it done these times… Lie about what you won’t do and then do it.

Peter Miller
February 24, 2011 11:50 am

Possibly one thing we should all consider is that it is probably in all – with the exception of Australians – our interests that this self-imposed impoverishment scheme goes ahead in Australia.
The typical politician and greenie are so far removed from the real world that only economic disaster will make them see a glimmer of common sense.
Well done Australia, thank you for drawing the short straw.

Dr A Burns
February 24, 2011 12:13 pm

>>Mike Haseler says:
>>Which century are they living in?
We’re living in the Dark Ages where religion and politics rule over science and common sense, with utter nonsense promoted by a ridiculously biased press.

Andy G
February 24, 2011 12:25 pm

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products.
ummm.. like what ?
It would take one heck of a large tax plus massive subsudies to make wind or solar viable, if it were even possible, which it isn’t.
The ONLY effect this tax will have is to lift the prices of many things, it will not change the balance of energy use, except because people are pushed below the poverty line and can no longer afford it.

February 24, 2011 12:31 pm

More than 12 months for this “policy” to be overtaken by events.
This is one of the most “courageous” decisions taken by a politician in a government with a tenuous majority that I have seen.
You can get away with a new tax when you have political capital to spend – not when you don’t.
This is a gift for the opposition parties – and we will see if they are capable enough to take advantage of it.

February 24, 2011 12:31 pm

I have a very simple hypothesis in all this. Could the lady have been “influenced”, directly or indirectly by some Siemens offshoot?
There are two groups (that I can see from my little perch in quasi bankrupt Greece) that are desperately pushing the Green Craze: The Germans (I label the, for simplicity’s sake the Siemens-Deutsche Bank duo) and politicians that go under the “Socialist/Democratic” label. In Greece they pretend to be socialist. In the US, it is the lovely Democrats with assorted do-gooders.
The sad Greek experience is that Siemens has bought into every political party but with a special affinity for the “socialists”. In the last 3-4 years it has been more discreet, and has gone through Green NGO’s, hordes of them, and through its subsidiary, Osram. Osram funded some obscure local NGO that brought Al Gore to Athens to do his bit.
I used to be “shy” about making such absurd conspiratorial statements, but it is no longer the Russians, they sneer at AGW, it is the Germans. They discovered a great scheme to promote their “solutions for a sustainable future”, all conveniently found in Siemens brochures. They have devised a masterful concept with feed-in-tariffs (an early 1990’s German SPD Law) and CO2 certificates. These are pressure mechanisms for all the hordes of idiots to be bying German salvation. If we, bankrupt Greeks, for example, buy a lot of wind and PV gadgets, we will offset carbon penalties. Excellent for German and Danish GNP, horrible for us.
CO2 certificates are worth “0” in the US, thanks to the death of cap-and-trade, and they will be worth “0” in Europe, unless a pan-European carbon tax is imposed 2-3 years from now. The Europeans, including the Germans will feel quite stupid if they are the ONLY ones with a carbon tax. Therefore, the pressure and the incentives must be huge to entice other suckers to go along.
I apologize that this sound like yet another conspiracy theory. It is not. It is a nicely conceived and masterfully executed business plan.
I have no info on Australia, but I bet you will find plenty of NGO support for Greenies. Invitations to Nobel events etc.
This is not about science, and Climatology will probably die out. It is about German export strategy.

February 24, 2011 12:36 pm

For above posters going on about Peak Oil…
I would like to mention a couple of things for you to consider.
1. Coal to Liquids conversion
2. Gas to Liquids conversion
3. Methane Clathrates
4. Uranium and Thorium for electric power
We have liquid fuels for centuries if not millenia – we will most likely have to deal with the next glacial period before we run out of liquid hydrocarbons.
The key challenge is maintaining prosperity so that we have the cultural/civilisational capital to deal with any issues/risks in the future.

Mark Twang
February 24, 2011 12:39 pm

Seems like many of the Commonweath nations are bound and determined to throw away their common wealth on a dare. Sux to be them, but at least the rest of us will get to witness a test case.

February 24, 2011 12:43 pm

Julia Gillard promised no ‘carbon’ (sic) tax at the last election. Now she changes her mind, and compounds the error by planning to eventually turn the carbon tax into cap and trade – more complex and accident-prone, aside from its rorts. Even the carbon tax would seemingly have to be very high to make expensive renewables like solar power competitive.

February 24, 2011 12:58 pm

Oil can hit $140 a barrel, and it’s still a better deal to drive a gas car than an electric (despite the delusions of greenies) electricity prices are connected to oil prices.
There’s a myriad of factors besides oil as well — safety being one of the most important… I cerntainly don’t want to get in a wreck with a car wired with deadly voltage and toxic chemicals, that’s for sure (never mind range, etc).
But it’s just like liberals to judge you, and to tell you how to live your life. It seems they like choice, only when it involves aborting a life. Energy? Nope, no choice for you!!

Mark in Oz
February 24, 2011 1:40 pm

Gillard has just been on the Alan Jones program for about 30 minutes. I had to turn it off as the dissembling, sophistry, not to mention outright mendacity spewing from the radio exceeded my tolerance level in very short time.
She actually expects people to believe that she campaigned for such a tax! Well, all I can say to those who voted for her and the watermelons is, suck up big ’cause no excuses for stupidity are accepted in the real world.

February 24, 2011 1:49 pm

@ Robert of Ottawa
Ummm not such a foreign concept you know
@ George Tetley
You can spend your money however you want, I dare say in the future with that car you’ll be spending most of it on fuel
“There is nothing stopping people from choosing “more efficient”” – you mean to imply energy prices don’t factor into consumer buying habits, what rubbish!
@Josh Grella
“There’s plenty of oil” – yeah you just keep rocking back and forth telling yourself that buddy. Tell me is there enough oil for the 2.5 billion people in China and India that want a US style lifestyle? Do you recommend they adopt an American life style too ?

February 24, 2011 2:05 pm

‘TimDot says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:43 am
Sorry everyone. Australia’s unhappy being a 1st-World nation so we’re going to quickly drop ourselves down to 2nd-World status.
After that, when the Watermelons take over, we’ll shoot through 3rd-World status quick smart and be living the perfect 21st century hippy agrarian lifestyle.
insert deity here help us…’
Just like the UK now, eh?

February 24, 2011 2:34 pm

In economic theory, in a closed economy and zero transaction costs, with all other things being equal, a carbon trading should work quite well to reduce carbon emissions. In the real world consider these points.
1. The oil price has more than tripled in the past decade. There are enough incentives to increase energy efficiencies from this alone. The marginal impact of carbon trading will be much lower than if the oil price had been static.
2. Those businesses which can most easily pass on the extra costs to the customer are those with no competition from abroad. Supermarkets, which consume huge amounts of energy, are a good example. Australians cannot hop over to New Zealand or Singapore for their weekly groceries. Manufacturing businesses – which can be shipped abroad to China – will do quite nicely from the carbon credits. They can cut back on production and use the carbon credits to fund new ventures overseas.
3. The energy trading schemes are highly complex and need experts to set up the rules. Or rather people who read up on the theory, and know more than the naive punters. (Sorry, I mean the elected representatives of the people.) Enron was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. Lehman Brothers was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. With mortgage securitisation now so last year, this presents the way to make extraordinary profits.
I do not keep up with politics too much, so Anthony, are you sure that you have things the right way round? A socialist government in Australia is bringing in a regressive policy that could cause consumers to subsidise manufacturing jobs abroad, and help a return to the multi-million dollar bonuses in the financial services industry. All this, in the name of a policy that will be near impotent in constraining CO2 emissions. The Republican Party (who represent business interests) in New Hampshire is proposing binning a policy that would help their real constituents.

February 24, 2011 2:42 pm

China has coal enough for generations to come. China is importing cheap coal from Oz and the US right now, preserving her own. US alone has enough coal and gas for hundreds of years.
It is a short-term supply/demand issue. With nuclear and coal and gas, I expect fuel costs to be much less, once we “Drill here-Drill Now”!
Oil and gas are being found using a new paradigm (see abiogenic oil) in China, Russia, and even Viet Nam. It is a renewable resource, I am convinced by the evidence mounting each day.

February 24, 2011 3:12 pm

In Western Australia , Mitchell’s are running a fleet of road trains running on LNG (dual fuel) already.
We have a dozen go past here every day.
It costs around $80K per conversion , and as the oil price rises it will become more and more cost effective.

February 24, 2011 3:40 pm

Hi all – it’s time for a lesson on Australian politics.
Kevin Rudd was our previous prime minister, who was disposed by his own party.
Kevin was a conviction politican.
Julia Gillard replace him, so reluctantly.
She is a pragmatic politican.
She is nominally far left wing, but practices the politics of the hard right Labor machine.
Their slogan, their policy, and their faith is always the same.
“whatever it takes”.
Say no more!
Julia promised not to introduce a carbon tax in order to get elected.
She failed to achieve a majority and had to partner with the Greens.
They demanded a tax on carbon.
She has now promised to levy a tax on carbon.
She s 100% focused on winning the next election.
She is focused 100% on winning the next vote in parliament.
She is focused 100% on not getting disposed, before she goes to sleep tonight.
Tomorrow is another day which comes with its own set of challanges.
Julia is determined to give just enough to keep the support of the Greens and the independents.
The hard men of her party know how destructive a tax on carbon will be.
That’s why julia is determined to tax as little as necessary to keep in power.
Now my friends overseas, I hope you begining to see how politics work in our present government.
Later on, I may tell you how the opposition work,
But that’s enough for you to digest in one meal, I would think.
It’s not about carbon dioxide, the climate or the well being of the universe.
“It’s the politics, stupid” as a former USA president once did not say.

February 24, 2011 3:56 pm

I should have included a note about we Australians.
We are not stupid.
We are a very pragatic lot.
We understand that politicans are only human,
and that they, like the rest of us, are very fallable.
We vote for which ever lot is seen as the least worst bunch.
That’s why we got an unstable parliament, last time, with no major party able to rule in their own right.
We must have been thinking about something else when we voted last time.
Public opinion polls are showing opposition now leading the government 54% to 46%.
Perhaps we are now playing closer attention.
The next election is not due for several more years, unless the present parliament becomes completely unworkable.
Here’s hoping!
(But not expecting over much).

Adny G
February 24, 2011 4:42 pm

I used to think Abbott was a slimy, evil, piece of work……. no change there.
But I now think Gillard is probably even worse !!!

February 24, 2011 4:43 pm

This is the Premier (Juliar as she is being called in the press) on radio with hard hitting Alan Jones:
This is the same person that rushed to the election polls last year shouting there would be no tax on carbon under her leadership.
Politicians lie… I know this will be a shock to some of you…. (does this really need a a /sarc?)

February 24, 2011 6:44 pm

Mike Haseler says:
February 24, 2011 at 12:12 am
Do Australians: always arrive at the party ready to start partying after it is over?
Which century are they living in?
Don’t laugh too early sunshine, the election campaign of Barack Obama had a strange parallelism to the election of Kevin Rudd and look how that turned out.
For your further amusement watch 2010 Election promise on

followed by radio interviews with Neil Mitchell on 3AW and Alan Jones on 2GB
this may give you an idea of the direction you are heading.

Furious Cam (Melb, Australia)
February 24, 2011 6:47 pm

Nothing to do with climate. Its for two reasons….
1) paying off the Greens and a couple of ‘loving my 15 minutes of fame’ independent members;
2) A cash grab.
This Government has spent more on a per capita basis than any ‘developed nation’ since the GFC. Sure, Australia technically avoided recession (a booming minerals industry would have something to say about that), but it came at an incredulous cost.
From having one of the largest per capita surpluses in the world in 2007 to having a massive debt (some $90Billion) just over 3 years later. Tens of billions wasted on unwanted buildings, a home insulation scheme disaster, green loan schemes, even cash cheques to voters in the mail! (yes I kid you not!!)
The opposition Coalition are way ahead on ‘economic management’ in perception and the polls. So the Government desparate to bridge the gap there, is having to find as much cash as possible, and quickly, to get the debt down. This is why we had that nonsensical proposal to tax mining companies profits double any other sector, and nearly double that of Canadian mining companies, which would have crippled the nation’s #1 industry.
This Government is addicted to spending. And a spending addiction is financed through debt. Debt is poison to the re-election chances of this Government (as in most countries, but especially Australia) and the Government knows that. As I said this has nothing to do with climate? (I guess whenever has it?!)

February 24, 2011 7:09 pm

I imagine there are going to be some viral videos using that clip old44… I wonder if the Minnesotans are available for a bit of Aussie fun?

Andy G
February 24, 2011 8:18 pm

Oakeshot was always a drivelling fool,
But I thought, maybe, Tony Windsor had more integrity.. obvously not !!
I have sent him an email say as much.

February 24, 2011 9:43 pm

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
@ Steve
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products. Poorer people can be compensated from the tax revenue … I mean Christ where do you people think the money is going? Into some kind of black hole never to be seen again!
Sideshow bob what arrogance and one eyed idiocy.
The fact is that Gillard and her Green Cohorts will put the money down a black hole, just as the Rudd Government did with Gillards approval. This will reduce the ordinary working man, the small investor, to serfdom – We will go back to walking 100 miles to save on fuel etc and have no incentive to improve our lot. This is a huge country with little transport infrastructure, but what there is, won’t be used by the Government, the Fat cats of Australian society or the Ross Garnault economists, they will run cars, fly in planes at the public expense and we will get the peanuts that fall from their table.
Windsor and Oakshott made a fatal mistake in throwing in with this lot as they knew that the Opposition party would go to the polls and win hands down at the first opportunity, so to preserve THEIR salary and perks, they compromised their claim to any principal and sided with a lame duck decimated party and the trainwrecking Greens who have done so much damage in local councils – planting trees in river courses, and preventing removal of fire hazard material that have caused so many problems in the floods and fires. Australians are only just waking up to the consequences of having a party of little green dictators rejoicing in exercising their “balance of power” and Julia having the insurance of having her parties appointed governor general to prevent a repeat of the removal of the Whitlam Labour Government by the then Governor General.
Perhaps its time for Oakshott and Windsor to apply a little precautionary principle and jump while then can and still face their electors who are might unhappy with them over this.

Patrick Davis
February 24, 2011 9:54 pm

“SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:27 am
But that’s exactly the whole point of a ficken carbon tax Steve! to ultimately lower energy bills by making people choose more efficient products.”
My quaterly power bill in 2009 was ~AU$97. My 2011 quaterly power bill is now ~AU$200. Did my actual, metered, power consumption go up in that time? Not at all. In fact it dipped slightly. So by using less, I actually paid more. When this carbon tax is introduced, how much less will my power bills be given the fact I use less power now than in 2009 (No, I have not changed any appliance, they are already efficient, or power use habbits)? And why should I throw away perfectly good appliances? Remind me again, how will this reduce CO2 emissions AND stop climate change?

February 24, 2011 10:37 pm

Gillard is like the principal in the school where I taught for 31 years. The school had a roll of 1200 and was doing fine, then this woman was appointed and she embarked on ludicrous educational experimentation. The public didn’t buy it and the roll dropped to less then 500 by the time she left to wreck another school. The roll is now 200 and closure is imminent as there was nothing we were able to do to revive the school’s reputation. At the time I was the maverick who did all I could to stop her, but she just mowed me down.
If you think a carbon tax is bad, our city has been sacrificed for the country’s (NZ) emissions trading scheme. Sick but true!

Robert Orme
February 24, 2011 11:56 pm

Unfortunately, the press is terribly biaised and climate change is the reason given for any random event. For example climate change is quoted as a reason for freezing weather for the past few years in the USA and Europe, the floods in Europe and Australia, wild fires and cyclones etc. There is little else to read and most people probably accept this point of view. How can anybody without much understanding of science come to another point of view as there is little offering an alternative point of view?
If you look at the political system there are 150 members in the federal parliament. I don’t think there is any one with a degree in science; Bob Brown used to be a medico and I think Greg Combet (the minister) has some engineering qualification but as to the rest they are for the most lawyers, ex party officials, ex trade union officials, a few farmers and so on. So they are reliant upon advice of federal bureaucrats, and the various lobbying groups. So one has to looking at who will benefit from a carbon tax
and that seems to give some understanding as to the Prime Minister’s backflip. But, she has also renegged on nearly every other promise she made prior to the recent election. So her it will be interesting if she can hang-on to her job in the longterm, but for the moment she can do little wrong in the media whereas the leader of the opposition, TonyAbbott, has a much more difficult task.

February 25, 2011 1:47 am

Bulldust says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I imagine there are going to be some viral videos using that clip old44… I wonder if the Minnesotans are available for a bit of Aussie fun?
I would love M4GW to do a parody but how do you top what Gillard is doing herself.

Les Francis
February 25, 2011 1:49 am

The voting public are in uproar over this.
Watch the developments in the next few days.
Gillard is making a goose of herself in her media forays trying to promote this announcement. Spin artist, deputy sheriff, Prime Minister Wayne Swan will need to come out and rescue her again.
Even the nominal leftist Aussie MSM have started labeling her as Joo-liar Gillard.
The bookmakers have already labeled her “history”.

Roger Knights
February 25, 2011 3:06 am

bubbagyro says:
February 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm
China has coal enough for generations to come. China is importing cheap coal from Oz and the US right now, preserving her own.

IIRC, it has lots of “steam coal” (bituminous) but is short on “metallurgical coal” (anthracite), which is what it’s buying (I think).

Andy G
February 25, 2011 3:53 am

Yep, IIRC, Gladstone area in QLD provides something like 80% of the world’s metalluric coal.

Andy G
February 25, 2011 3:57 am

If this moronic tax does somehow get through, would the Liberals, on winning the next election, reduce the price to $0.00. ??
or are they more likely just the keep the money rolling in.

February 25, 2011 4:02 am

Ju-liar Gillard and her hypocritical Labor Party, aided and abetted by the Greens are trying to make us the laughing-stock of the world!
We have vast reserves of uranium and happily export it to the many countries enjoying the benefits of clean nuclear power, but the above troglodytes afraid of their own shadows won’t even consider building a nuclear power plant here.
We have vast supplies of coal supplying us power and happily export it to give us the standard of living we enjoy (but are rapidly losing) and the idiots above with their irrational hatred of fossil fuels, are trying to wreck the industry. Sadly, former Union hacks now MP’s have forgotten the workers who put them there and are actively involved in trying to destroy the jobs of those who depend on it.
We have many hydro-electric schemes giving us the cleanest, most renewable energy possible, with the opportunity to build several more dams to use the water which is currently wasted during the regular wet seasons, but no Government has the guts to stand up to the small minority of Greens who say “No Dams”!
We have vast reserves of natural gas but the Greens try and stop every proposed development of further fields.
Instead , this hotch -potch government of a big weak Labor dog being wagged by a tiny but noisy Green tail and propped up by three self-serving Independents, is throwing millions of dollars in wasteful subsidies at such schemes as wind, solar and hot rocks thermal technology, none of which can hope to provide the baseload power our growing nation will need.
Now they want to impose a costly carbon tax which will impact on almost every facet of our lives and place more strain on people already struggling with rising prices.
And for what? Allegedly to “stop climate change”, an impossible task under any circumstances, but worse when it’s based on the dodgy projections from inadequate climate models which have resulted in promotion of the hypothesis of AGW, arguably the greatest pseudo-scientific con ever perpetrated!
Truly we are currently in an asylum being run by the inmates !!
Hopefully common sense will prevail before they can do too much damage. There is certainly a rising tide of anger and frustration out there unlike any I have ever known before in my relatively long life.

February 25, 2011 5:44 am

I’ve set Ms Gillard’s words to dance music: “No Carbon Tax”.

Josh Grella
February 25, 2011 5:52 am

SideShowBob says:
February 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Wow, really? I’m the one rocking back and forth? Interesting. How about we stick to the original discussion? You stated that we are at peak oil and we need to find alternatives NOW. I replied we are not and that we have plenty of oil untapped within our own borders here in the USA. Enough to bring the cost of a gallon of gas to $1 or lower if we could just tell the greenies to shut up and get out of the way. That is fact. Bringing China’s increasing demand into the mix is nothing more than a diversion tactic – an attempt to reframe the argument because you know I’m right. We have enough oil here to supply us with all the petroleum products of every variety we need for well over a century at the most conservative estimates. During that time, efficincies and new types of energy will have time to be developed in an economically sound fashion. So, again explain to me why I’m wrong without resorting to shifting to an entirely different argument?
By the way, we have enough oil here to supply all our demand as well as to sell some to China if they want it. It’s a win-win. But, hey, since you obviuosly like the Simpsons, I’ll leave you with my favorite Homer quote: “Facts, shmacts. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” I used facts. You used diversion tactics and tired old greenie lies. Care to try again?

Greg Holmes
February 25, 2011 7:05 am

Glad I do not live in Australia. How can this type of decision be made at a time when the peer reviewed evidence becoming available is showing huge flaws in the assumtions and theories of the climate alarmist cause. Even their our Meterological Service is being given a hard time. her husband doesn’t work for “Windmills Inc” does he?

February 25, 2011 9:41 am

So ends the reign of Australia’s first female pm.

February 25, 2011 12:22 pm

Greg Holmes asks, “her husband doesn’t work for “Windmills Inc” does he?” Ms Gillard is unmarried, but her leman, Tim Mathieson (who lives with her in the PM’s official residence, The Lodge), is a real estate salesman, hairdresser, and one of the Government’s men’s health ambassadors.

February 25, 2011 12:47 pm

she will go down in history as the worst prime minister ever she is a goose and a left wing communist

Bruce Cobb
February 25, 2011 1:25 pm

SideShowBoob says:
February 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm
you mean to imply energy prices don’t factor into consumer buying habits, what rubbish!
Of course energy prices are a factor: the higher the cost of energy is, the less the consumer has available to spend, even on needed items. The cost of food, clothing, heating, cooling etc. all go up, making people poorer, which puts a downward drag on the economy, forces jobs overseas, etc. But, I guess that’s what Greenies really want, isn’t it?

February 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Update courtesy “Australian” newspaper today 26/2/11. Excerpts as follows:
“THE Greens have pushed petrol to the front line in the war over a carbon tax, insisting prices should rise at the bowser as part of the plan to combat pollution.
As alarm grew within Labor ranks about the backlash against Julia Gillard for breaking her election promise not to introduce a carbon tax, Greens deputy leader Christine Milne turned petrol into a flashpoint for Labor by insisting the transport sector should be included in any carbon pricing regime.
Including transport in the carbon tax regime, which is due to start on July 1 next year, is expected to raise petrol prices at a time when rising oil prices — sparked by the instability in the Middle East — are already driving prices higher and adding to cost of living concerns.
Hitting the airwaves to sell the carbon decision, Ms Gillard dismissed as “semantics” suggestions she had broken an election-eve promise ruling out a carbon tax.
As Ms Gillard tried to take control of the debate, Senator Milne said the climate change committee behind the carbon plan had been the Greens idea and the party had ownership of the scheme “because it’s the one we put on the table ourselves”.
She said while negotiations on the details of the carbon price package had yet to begin, the point of putting a price signal on carbon into the economy was to “drive changes in behaviour”.”That is why we think transport should be in.
But new figures released by the Department of Climate Change yesterday showed Australia’s biggest energy companies would be put out of business if they had to pay the world price for carbon emissions under a carbon tax without compensation.
The giant NSW power company Macquarie Generation, Australia’s biggest emitter, would face a bill of $613 million if it had to pay the $26 a tonne the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme was based on. The tax bill would be more than three times the company’s latest profit of $196m, while the second ranked Delta Electricity would face a bill of $538m or almost 10 times its last full-year profit.” End excerpts.
A Coalmining leader today said mines would have to close if carbon tax was introduced without adequate compensation (which the Greens would fight tooth and nail)! Investment would dry up as investors moved off-shore and it would have absolutely no effect at all on emissions as they would simply continue elsewhere.
In other words, the carbon tax would see our jobs, industries and investment opportunities exported off-shore, in many cases to countries with far less stringent environmental legislation and controls than we have already.
No-one should be in doubt that Australia is at the cross-roads as far as our future prosperity is concerned and this costly useless tax must be fought until defeated once and for all!

February 25, 2011 3:28 pm

@Josh Grella
Diversion tactics?! You’re your off your rocker mate. We live in a global village you can’t take china and india out of the equation and they will push up oil prices that’s a fact. Typical of an American – and $1 oil ?! where on Gods green earth do you get this rubbish from? Greenies, yeah right? It’s all the greenies fault – it’s not like the US went through peak oil in – wait of it – oh snap – the 70’s!
“Of course energy prices are a factor: the higher the cost of energy is, the less the consumer has available to spend, even on needed items. The cost of food, clothing, heating, cooling etc. all go up, making people poorer, which puts a downward drag on the economy, forces jobs overseas, etc. But, I guess that’s what Greenies really want, isn’t it?”
Chris that’s the whole point – to bring down the cost of energy by making people use less! To make people buy more efficient products! You seem to imply that the extra tax money disappears into a black hole. The whole point is to the lower demand on oil to bring its price down so that we’re not paying so much for it to the middle eastern counties. It’s 101 economics mate… lower demand for something and bring down its price.

Patrick Davis
February 25, 2011 7:43 pm

“KV says:
February 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm
In other words, the carbon tax would see our jobs, industries and investment opportunities exported off-shore, in many cases to countries with far less stringent environmental legislation and controls than we have already.”
The process of shifting jobs, in particular manufacturing/textiles, off shore to China has already begun. As an example the New South Wales govn’t shifted it’s manufacturing of clothing and uniforms etc a couple of years ago to China.
Of course the carbon tax will, effectively, destroy what industry is left in Australia as you have highlighted above. The Australian car maker Holden would be severely impacted because all of the parts suppliers would be forced offshore. But there’s more. Australian authorities have already approved the import of a Chinese made car. The thin edge of the wedge has been firmly planted to separate people from jobs and businesses from Australian workers.
The company I work for already has shifted much work to Indonesia, India and China not with the intent to reduce emissions, oh no, simply to increase the bottom line. Why pay an Australian AU$75k p/a when you can pay an Indian in bangalore AU$7.5k? A carbon tax will simply accelerate this process of exporting wealth and employment and we need only look to riots in some parts of Europe and Africa to see what angry, hungry and unemployed people are prepared to do.

Patrick Davis
February 25, 2011 7:51 pm

“Greg Holmes says:
February 25, 2011 at 7:05 am”
Because it never has been about reducing “carbon” emissions to save the planet. It always has been about revenue streams. Sen. Bob Brown stated in the election campaign that…to paraphrase “…if we want improved services, hostpitals, roads, ferries, schools etc etc…then a carbon tax would fund that…” seem clear to me what the intention is. Personally, if ALL other taxes were abolished leaving ONLY a “carbon tax”, which in effect is a consumption tax, then I’d be happy with that. But I am surprised at the number of Australians who support this tax un top of all the other taxes, including the new, temporary, “flood levy” (and when has a tax ever been temporary?).

Patrick Davis
February 25, 2011 8:00 pm

“Andy G says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:57 am”
The liberals are just as keen to establish a unlimited, never ending, revenue stream. Really, its not these front bench puppets we see on the idiot box night after night bleeting on and on about “moving forward with a carbon tax” etc etc, its the political, business and ruling classes that hold the purse strings of those roaming through the halls of real power. All the faceless and nameless men and women who are never elected.
We know Enron was one energy company which was first to raise the idea of a “tax” on enery. We also know the ex-CEO of Enron has/had a buddy called Al Gore. And it is rather ironic that much of Gore’s family wealth was derived from oil. The rest, as is said, is history.

Andy G
February 25, 2011 8:10 pm

“Patrick Davis says:
February 25, 2011 at 8:00 pm ”
As I suspected, Abbott refuses to say he will rescind the climate tax if he wins the next election..
If you tossed a coin to see which of he or Gillard was worse, it would land in a pile of cow dung. !!

Al Gored
February 25, 2011 10:46 pm

Completely OT, or sort of, but I just noticed something about that photo of Gillard. If you just added a narrow moustache…

February 26, 2011 3:14 am

Patrick Davis says
“February 25 at 7-51pm”
Patrick, most of the polls I’ve seen since Ju-liar Gillard’s announcement are running betweeen 80-90% against a carbon tax. Personally, I don’t think there are many apart from the evangelical gullible “believers” in AGW that do support it.
Andy G says
“February 25, at 8-10pm”
Andy, I’m no fan of any politician but to be fair, Tony Abbott said he would fight this carbon tax “every minute, every day” and he didn’t accept that it would ever come in
because the people would revolt against it. “Refuses to say he would rescind it” is a typical beat-up by our poor excuses for real journalists.
Talk about the tax has almost disappeared from our biased MSM, particularly the ABC, but few take any notice of them any more. The blogs however, are boiling and more and more people are turning to them to keep abreast of what’s happening at home and around the world.

Andy G
February 26, 2011 12:20 pm

yeah, guess I’m just a bit p…ed off with pollies, and always suspect the worst.
Question is, how can we best fight this idiocy.?

Patrick Davis
February 26, 2011 11:32 pm

“Andy G says:
February 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm”
Well, I don’t know. Voting doesn’t seem to achieve much these days except changing seating arrangements in Parliament. Gillard really has stuck her neck out this time and has commited political suicide IMO. A politico friend of mine reckons she’ll be out before the end of the year, and he’s hoping for a double dissolution election. Be careful what you wish for. The Gillard Govn’t has now announced the tax, but there is no substance or even detail. Gillard keeps repeating the mantra “Families will be sunsidized.” What is the point in taking a tax off someone to return it to them in the form of a subsidy? Vote buying perhaps?
“KV says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:14 am”
I’ve seen polls too, but they are verty close, ~45% in favour, ~51% against and ~4 not sure. I have a feeling that, because of the huge volume of AGW propaganda in the Australian MSM and on TV, voters will support it without fully understanding the implications. But polls are polls, not really meaningful, bit like a global average temperature. And, as predicted, the ABC is stuck on the AGW propaganda bandwagon.

Dr John Penhallurick
February 28, 2011 4:49 pm

Gillard really seems to have put her foot in her mouth with her announcement of the carbon tax. The media have been replaying endlessly over the past few days video or sounds of here repeated promise before the last election:”My government will not impose a carbon tax.” She also seems to have played into the hands of the Liberals, in that the media had earlier been focussing on splits within the federal Liberal Party over migration and boat people,and it was thought that this would help the struggling Labour Government in New South wales, which is threatened with being reduced to a mere rump in the very near state election. But now Gillard has eclipsed that story with her carbon tax. It doesn’t help her that the Greens are claiming ownership of the tax. It is encouraging to say that approximately two-thirds of Australians do not believe that human emissions are making a significant contribution to climate change. I guess this testifies to the wisdom of the crowd.

March 10, 2011 5:45 am

Oh good, the reply period is still open. Next to last comment from me here?
Yesterday the NH House Finance committee approved HB-518-FN, the get out of RGGI bill. (BTW, the -FN suffix means that the bill has a significant financial impact and has to be review by the finance committee should it make past the full house vote.) The bill goes back to the full house, then goes on to the senate.
I’ve started a web directory of RGGI stuff for the region and NH, see and
Next to last comment? Yesterday was also the first RGGI auction of the year, results will be available after 1000 EST (UTC-0500) at
Expect some notes from me.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights