Sunset Clause for the C-Tax?
Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That?
30 July 2011
Australians must insist that the monstrous carbon dioxide tax legislation has a sunset clause which is triggered by global cooling.
This whole tax extravaganza is based on the foolish notion that man’s production of life-sustaining carbon dioxide controls global temperature and we need a C-Tax to stop it.
However no one has produced evidence that carbon dioxide exclusively controls the climate. What’s more, carbon dioxide production is rising strongly but world temperature has been stable for the last 13 years. Right now sea surface temperatures are falling sharply.
“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather. Therefore the C-Tax should be scrapped immediately the global temperature falls below the 30 year average temperature, indicating the start of global cooling.
As the sun has gone quiet, and Queensland has just had its coldest autumn for at least 60 years, this looks likely to happen soon.
Viv Forbes
Rosewood Qld Australia
Sunset Clause for the C-Tax?
Australians must insist that the monstrous carbon dioxide tax legislation has a sunset clause which is triggered by global cooling.
This whole tax extravaganza is based on the foolish notion that man’s production of life-sustaining carbon dioxide controls global temperature and we need a C-Tax to stop it.
However no one has produced evidence that carbon dioxide controls the climate. What’s more, carbon dioxide production is rising strongly but world temperature has been stable for the last 13 years. Right now sea surface temperatures are falling sharply.
“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather. Therefore the C-Tax should be scrapped immediately the global temperature falls below the 30 year average temperature, indicating the start of global cooling.
As the sun has gone quiet, and Queensland has just had its coldest autumn for at least 60 years, this looks likely to happen soon.
(150 words)
Viv Forbes
Rosewood Qld Australia
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Colin says:
July 30, 2011 at 8:39 am
The Carbon Tax has a sunset clause. No CO2 emissions = No Carbon Tax.
100% renewable energy spells the end for the Carbon Tax.
Let’s get on with.
The faster we get to the goal of 100% renewable energy, the quicker we see the end of the carbon tax.
========================================================================
In other news a large herd of lemmings jumped off a cliff while a nearby group of humans held their collective breaths – no doubt looking forward to a zero CO2 emissions world.
In Canada we won’t even need a Carbon sunrise subsidy.
For comments on taxes and Governments see C. Northcote Parkinson’s THE LAW AND THE PROFITS, published in 1959 but surely due for a reprint. In it he predicted rising expenditure, taxes, debt and increased crime and bureaucratic regulation (if the latter is a separate category).
In another of his books (1962) he predicted the collapse of communism, the breakup of the USSR, and the rise of militant islam.
I leave it up to you to decide how well his predictions stand up, and how likely it is that the IPCC predictions will come about.
As for our less than beloved Prime Minister time will also tell. The legislation has yet to be introduced into parliament, let alone passed. And she has a majority of one.
(Dr. Dave – please note that ONLY 72% of the population are against her in the latest poll)
Eve Stevens says:
July 30, 2011 at 11:14 am
In Canada, income tax was introduced in WWI…
============================================
Add to all those taxes the hidden taxes such as the cost of water delivery and disposal, the 18% increase in our provincial electricity bill to support the job creating green industry (kind of ironic – isn’t that the color of our money), the handling/delivery charges for natural gas, the air conditioning tax on cars.
Why would a government willingly agree to lay aside one of the best tax rorts ever dreamed of?
If Australians try to push for a sunset clause, they’re tacitly agreeing that the government is right to introduce the carbon dioxide tax in the first place – even though they never sought any electoral mandate to do so.
.
Sunset clause? No problemo. The clause can simply scrap the tax three seconds after it’s passed. Greenies win (“Yay, we passed the tax!”), the people win (“Yay, the tax ended), and Gillard wins (“See, I kept my promise–both of them!”).
Silly, yes, but no sillier than proposing the tax in the first place.
Taxing the air we breath so that social engineers can dictate our lives?, send off billions so the UN can be even more wasteful?, what idiot thought up that scheme? Yep, the same economists that think if you throw government money at “green” energy, IT will all fall at your feet, rain green jobs, employ more bean counters, save the world. Its a TAX, our money feeding the looney bin left whichever way you cut it, they will spend it, and then want to borrow more when those schemes fail. All it will achieve is finish off what is left of a wonderful country!
Let us face some facts:
The latest News Poll on an Australian Carbon Tax showed that it had gained some momentum since the tax payer funded advertising campaign began rising 6% to 36% of voters. Opposition to the tax fell from 59% to 53%.
This still leaves support for a carbon tax well behind its opposition. However the promotion of a carbon tax by the government will be relentless with the support of the sympathetic media such as the ABC and a continuous string of high profile speakers such as Tony Blair. They will also point to every extreme weather event that occurs around the world as justification to introduce a tax that will “tackle climate change”.
Tony Abbott has done a sterling job so far in pointing out the lunacy of a tax that cannot change the climate one iota well past our generation’s lifetime but can only damage an economy when a stronger economy is better equipped to produce a better environment. Also the most telling factor of all is that Julia Gillard told the electorate 5 days before the election that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. At least half of them therefore believe that she was only able to form government by deceit and her government is therefore illegitimate.
No matter how she tries to get around this fact, this will be continuously thrown back at her right up until election day and the voting public will not be allowed to forget it.
The problem Tony Abbott faces is the fact that many see his ‘Direct Action Plan’ as weak and he faces the dilemma that if he believes in human made climate change he has to fully explain why his plan is better than the carbon tax. He may face some difficulty in doing this. But at the moment he is walking the tightrope of gaining the support of both believers in AGW (but not a carbon tax) and sceptics. The question is whether he can maintain this situation until election day which is more than two years away. The Government has time, much of the media and tax payer’s money to provide sweeteners on its side to turn public opinion.
I believe it is going to be a fascinating and a very close race and not the least of factors will be the world’s weather in the next two years. Sceptics in Australia better start praying for more snow, no natural disasters, no major heat waves and smooth meteorological sailing until voting day.
The Socialist/Green government won’t scrap their CO2 tax no matter what. But in the longer term total tax revenues from general income tax and the CO2 tax will diminish as Australia’s manufacturing, agricultural and resources industries move off shore. Presumably that’s what the Green zealots want – to see is this country depopulated and taken back 60,000 years to the time before any human initiated CO2 emissions.
Why, we could become the world’s first genuine “climate refugees” as we follow our industry to China. But then I guess that would be just swapping one totalitarian regime for another.
The carbon tax shouldn’t be allowed to get off the ground at all……. let alone a sunset.
I take it most people on this site have been lead to believe that thousands of scientists around the world have come up with this gigantic hoax so that governments around the world can get more tax. Working in all manner of different institutes, often in universities, in dozens of countries, they have consistently come up with this coordinated stream of wrong science over the past 30 years plus.
Am I even half way right?
As long as the Sceptics keep repeating that: 5BC, 98 was warmer… shouldn’t blame the Warmist. Because the Warmist concocted all the misleading data – Sceptics use it as factual. Heat in the atmosphere is not acumulative. Reason: when part of the atmosphere warms up – air expands up; where is minus -90C. Intercepts extra coldness in 3,5 seconds – in a jiffy that extra coldness falls some other place to make it colder, to balance /counteract. Finding that in the past some part of the planet was colder or warmer; then declaring that the WHOLE planet was warmer, is same as saying: ”planet is warmer at lunch time by 9 degrees than before sunrise…?!” Alarmist cannot take the sceptics seriously. The Laws of physics and Mitich formula say precisly: EH=AE=ECI (Extra Heat=Atmosphere Expands=Extra Coldness Intercepts) If you believe in those laws of physics that they don’t only work sometymes, should know the answers on those questions = you know more than all the shonky climatologist: Q: Why oxygen +nitrogen expand more when warmed by 6C, than when warmed by 3C? Q2: if they are warmed by 30minutes, why they don’t start shrinking after 10minutes? Q3: why they don’t stay expanded after they are cooled to previous temperature? Those answers and 1000more are in my book and on my website http://www.stefanmitich.com.au
Atmosphere is not same as human body, same temperature in every part. monitoring for IPCC on 6000 places is a jocke. Needs temperature taken on 60 billion places /every few minutes; to know the temperature overall even for last year. Without it, cannot be compared one year’s temperature to other. Who is monitoring the temperature on every cubic kilometre above the oceans? Doesn’t that flactuation count? What was the temperature 234m. above East Anglia university on 4 /7 last year? What about 234km NE of Fiji 234m altitude, on the same date?
If temperature goes up in Europe /USA by 8C, in Oceania goes down by 0,8C; because Oceania is 10 times larger than Europe /USA . Why is not 10 times more monitoring places over Oceania than in Europe /USA? Oxygen +nitrogen control the temperature in the atmosphere, by expanding /shrinking; not the climatologist. CO2 does absorb more heat than O+N, but that is only during the day. At night CO2 absorbs more coldness than O+N; THOSE TWO FACTORS CANCEL EACH OTHER. That’s why CO2 is used to make dry ice. Unless you believe that is suny 24hours on every square metre on the planet = flat earth believer. Second factor was used for their Nuclear Winter for year 2000” Before you even defrosted from their nuclear winter, they got stuck into the first factor, for global warming. When they realized that is no global warming – as a fig leaf; to cover their shame, they changed to Climate Change…? Only the most ignorant Warmist and most of the active Sceptics still believe in the phony GLOBAL warming…
Climate never stopped changing for billion years, climate can change for betther and for worse. Water changes climate, not CO2. It is esential for climate to keep changing and keep the genes from becoming junk genes in everything living. I.e. use it or lose it. If the genes for adoptation become junk genes = will be the end of evyrithing. Human can change the climate for better, by saving more stormwater on the land (dams) Is it better climate around Kyoto city, Stuthgart, where is 10 times more CO2 than inland Australia /Sahara? Get real proofs on my website, or stop criticasing the Warmist. Withour real proofs, they will not admit that they have being wrong on everything; because lots of billions have being squandered. Reason they are pushing with carbon tax; so that in couple of years, when everybody realises that is no GLOBAL warming – they will state that they prevented it, with your money. From then on, you obay them, or Gulag. Because of the bias media; nobody will notice that: when they predicted on Kyoto conference warming of 5-6 degrees by 2060, China was producing same amount of CO2 as Australia, now = to 14 Australias and growing. Indian population grows by 23 million every year ++++ Please logon my website, inform everybody to do it; can be the end of the propaganda in few months. But real proofs first. No more: solar /galactic influences… leave those influences for horoscope people. Learn about the briliant self adjusting mechanism O+N are doing. To be same warmth in the planet’s atmosphere every hour of every day and every year. Law of physics and my formulas, boys! prof. Plimer and his loyal /fanatic suporters deserve a medal from All Gore and from Tim Flannery… Dump the sily antiques, or declare that you don’t believe in the laws of physics. Lots of phony GLOBAL warming in the past will not prove that is no warming in 100y. Saying that will get warmer by 0,5degrees, only litlebit; is same as saying that man can get pregnant, but only litle bit…? Grow up and join ”the Resistance”
I sincerely hope you are in sarc mode. If not, then is everyone supposed to stop breathing? I’m sure many greens would prefer that outcome, but the rest of us do not.
No CO2=
No more beer or wine.
No more cement.
No more carbonated drinks.
No more yeast risen bread.
No more welding using CO2 as a shielding gas.
No more dry ice for storage and transportation of all manner of goods.
…and the list goes on and on.
Think about it a little before making such an inane statement as yours.
John Tee says:July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I take it most people on this site have been lead to believe that thousands of scientists around the world have come up with this gigantic hoax
————————————————————————
John: Assuming you can think for yourself but do not have the information, here’s a partial list of reasons for you.
First, the original “thousands of scientists” was shown to be a cherry-picked number less than 100.
Second, the CRU emails show CLEAR examples of blackballing scientists who disagree, fabrication of data, and successful attacks on skeptical magazine editors.
Third, the computer models are not correctly predicting the climate.
Fourth, the government employee scientists who created the computer models are not allowing independent verification of those models.
Fifth, water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but they’re not trying to ban that because it’s obviously silly and stupid.
Sixth, there are plenty of scientists who are calling baloney on this whole process.
Seventh, the temperature data are being manipulated (e.g. the lower temperature mountain readings are being dropped off the tabulations).
Eighth, the physical phenomenon of CO2 causing IR entrapment is demonstrably nearly saturated.
Ninth, The computer models rely on an ASSUMPTION that H2O has a positive feedback effect on the process, and any engineer can tell you that would have blown up billions of years ago.
Tenth, the vaunted IPCC changed their temperature history documents to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period which had greater temperature rise.
I’m getting tired of typing.
Why would any sane, thinking person want to return to glacial conditions (or temperatures) of the past? Haven’t you heard… we have 7 billion people to feed now. I guess some people just hate humanity. GK
Maybe worth noting that Australia as a whole had its coldest autumn since at least 1950 at 1.15C below the 1961-1990 climate normal … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs33.pdf
The most recent BoM monthly update shows the mean temp for May in the western half of the country was .9C below the normal … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/wa/mwr-wa-201105.pdf
And it’s worth looking at the temp history of the Western Australia capital city of Perth to ponder how much the poor in particular will appreciate more expensive, CO2-taxed electricity prices, particularly when they need heaters to warm them during the city’s cooling winter nights … http://www.waclimate.net/perth-cold-spells.html
I don’t mean to be rude, but this is probably the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen. Do you expect climate to be static? Do you REALLY want a return to the LIA? Do you REALLY think that we can control the climate? REALLY??
They tried a wealth redistribution tax last year over here with the Mining & Resources Rent Tax. But because they are inept they were unable to formulate a policy and so they went back to the good old global warming one as soon as Brisbane had it’s floods. Reading Mein Kampf is like reading the policy platform of the Australian Greens. Bob Brown I think is Hitler’s reincarnation.
Mike says:
July 30, 2011 at 9:54 am
“Fine. When global temps return to pre-industrial revolution levels and glaciers and ice caps around the world return to previous levels, then we drop the carbon tax. ”
Seriously Mike, download and read “A Chronological Listing of Early
Weather Events” by James A. Marusek, it’s a free 580 page PDF that covers the last 1000years. If you can bear to read it through, you will realise that we have been enjoying the most benign climate in that period.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/
Do you really want to see a return to say, all the major rivers of Europe frozen enough to support armies and road transport across them, famines lasting years that led to widespread cannibalism in Russia and Europe and Middle East and England?The Bosporus blocked more than once with 30 foot icebergs, from the Black Sea freezing over, frosts killing all fruit trees and grape vines over much of France on many occasions, and incidentally freezing wine in casks so that it was distributed by axe ? Just a few of many repeated disasters, but perhaps you would like to walk across the Hudson from Long Island to Staten Island, it would be fun—– for a day.
Deloittes in Australia have issued a statement which along the following lines; Carbon taxes will be the white collar crime of the future.
I can’t agree with this letter to the editor.
To call AGW controversial is one thing, but to call it foolish is another. I think you are all fooling yourselves if you deny there isn’t any credible scientific evidence to back AGW.
if there was a sunset clause in place it would have been triggered weeks ago .if you log onto the sydneys sundaytelegraph you see a photo of tony blair huging julia gillard this week ,he told gillard she was on the right track as far as carbon tax hoax goes what would he know .hanging over the heads of australian is a communists
In the lead article; quote:
“Climate” is generally defined as an average of 30 years of weather.
Funny that; when a while ago I enquired at RealClimate what the 30-year average trend centred on 1940 was, (answer ~zero), the post did not emerge from moderation. I then asked my dog Jedda to rephrase the question from a different computer and Email address, and it too disappeared into the ether.
The fact is that the current plateau or slight cooling for over a decade is not sensibly explained in the dogma of the church or in their models.
Oh, and I forgot to add that the 1940 plateau looks a bit like what we have now over the last decade or so
My first ten reasons were what came to mind first. Here are two more good reasons to doubt the government sponsored AGW enthusiasts.
Eleventh, the geological record shows no correlation between CO2 level and temperature. Planet Earth has had ice ages during periods of high CO2 and tropical conditions with low CO2.
Twelfth, Science includes skepticism. If skepticism isn’t allowed, it’s not science.
“Michael Klein says:
July 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm”
There *IS* no credible science supporting AGW (AGW as in emissions of CO2 from human activity DRIVING climate to change in a bad way for humanity and the planet). Plenty of theory, models etc.