Story submitted by Richard Abbott
At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”. To form a minority Labor party government three elected independent members sided with Labor and to ensure upper house control of legislation change the Greens offered their solidarity provided a carbon tax was introduced.
Currently Australian parliament is debating the carbon tax bill, which has emerged with a rather bitter and poisonous pill. The carbon tax legislation’s emission right is to be treated as conventional property rights, therefore making it almost impossible to repeal once enacted, because of the enormous compensation that the Australian government of the day would be required to pay to the 500 polluting companies being forced to purchase carbon emissions permit credits.
Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal when global climate change is found not to be caused by industrial man. The poisonous pill added was to prevent the Liberal opposition party repealing the carbon tax legislation at the next federal election in 2013. Not surprisingly the prime minister’s popularity at the last media poll was 28% and with this announcement today likely to drop further. Sadly because of the Independent’s own personal guaranteed agendas and Greens with their agenda Australia is now guaranteed a carbon tax far removed from climate change.
Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow. (Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.)
Yes, we will be the laughing stock of the world, seen jumping head first off a cliff into a shark infested sea, as we will have no way back, because we were sold a tax that has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alan Watt. We are indeed aware!. The other salient point is that both our incumbent prime minister and her predecessor, whom she knifed in the back, have ideals of grandeur to obtain a seat on a one global nation order.
Alex S ..Yes every law can be appealed, but always at a cost that will ultimately disadvantage those who can least afford! You have to try and understand that we Australians are mere puppets in a game being played by political zealots who have egos beyond comprehension!.
The Red Kangaroo and Emu on each side of the shield on the coat of arms are supposed to have been used as they’re not prone to retreating or moving backwards, we need to change the coat of arms now to reflect our regression.
Maybe a Brown snake and a Red Back spider on each side of a GE wind turbine.
I see the idle layabout’s back. How about this then
“the Gore camp theory …. has nothing to do with climate change” I removed a bit to hide the decline. Perfectly good way to process data isn’t it?
The only person “Caught red-handed by a self contradiction” is the liar Gillard who made a promise and then broke it.
@ur momisugly polistra
“NO. EXACTLY WRONG. It’s Gramscian redistribution, not Marxian redistribution. Take from the poor and the middle, and give abundantly to the obscenely rich. The poor suffer most from energy-related taxes.”
I’m sorry, you are mistaken in regards to Australia’s carbon tax. Half of the tax is being given to the poor as “compensation for higher prices”. An unemployed single person will be ~$200 better off under a carbon tax. Myself, a family with 3 kids earning over $150K, will be ~$900 worse off.
The highest compensations are for the lowest earners (and the tax-free threshold is being doubled, which will mean a million more Australians won’t have to pay income tax [out of ~7.5 million workers]). The compensation gets smaller as you earn more, reaching $0 at $150K family income. Not sole income, family income!
This is most definitely, rob from the middle & rich and give to the poor.
For a clearer picture of this wealth distribution tax, see the official compensation estimator:
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/cameo-tables/
Answer: The same way as Libya and Egypt. Civil assembly and demonstration marches demanding new elections, or at least a plebiscite on carbon taxes. All power resides in the people… when they march. When they start to kill you, the people… you have won. Simples!
Too bad the people allowed this to happen in the first place. Until then, enjoy life, living in a non-developed 3rd world country. Sorry. GK
When you have a carbon “guilt Tax” as we do in BC the real crime occurs when it’s found out where the money ends up. Here it’s thrown at anything “green”.
The only thing worse than a true believer is a guilty one that has your money.
LazyTeenager,
“Makes this claim:
Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal
And then makes this claim:
has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.
Caught red-handed by a self contradiction.”
=========================================
Sorry if I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but what exactly is the contradiction?
Even dictators can be repealed. Libya, Iraq, Italy, USSR. Might be the first time for Australia.
It’s time to get Paul Hogan out of retirement, don his “Crocodile Dundee” outfit, and lead an “Australian Spring”.
I’m sick of looking at Julia in her “Sieg Heil” pose.
Minor spelling correction- change “lead” to “led” in the following: ‘At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”.’
Common error.
IanM
Roger Knights says:
September 16, 2011 at 1:52 am
That is truely Machiavellian! For Austalia’s sake, I would hope you are right.
We will have the most open and transparent government….
…I will hire no lobbyists
“we have to hurry up and pass it, so you can read what’s in it”
It is total nonsense to say you cannot repeal a tax in the next election cycle. You most certainly can.
In most western countries, income taxes were introduced to pay for wars. I think in the USA the excuse for income taxes was to pay for the civil war, in Canada it was to pay for WWI. I’ll bet the same excuse was used to introduce income taxes in Australia. These wars were long ago paid for, yet income taxes remain. The excuse for this carbon tax is to ‘save the world’. And after the world has been saved that tax will remain, just like income taxes are still around.
The wool was pulled over the eyes of North Americans to pay for past wars, today the wool is being pulled over the eyes of the Ozzies (and New Zealanders) to save the world. I used to think they were smarter than that.
Next Jaccard’s carbon tax!
Wow… Australia is slitting it’s own throat. Imagine trying to put a tourniquet on that wound.
In reply to kim’s insightful comment:
kim;) says:
September 16, 2011 at 6:22 am
Some interesting Maths I found…. http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/11145/The-Answer-Flannery-Refused-To-Give-MAYBE-Just-0-00005-C-In
Kim your comment includes a discussion of facts and basic arithmetical calculations which clearly shows the Australian carbon tax and carbon trading scheme is a scam that will have no significant net environmental benefit to the world or to Australians, even if we accept the IPCC’s CO2 warming “amplification” mechanism.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
(Satellite analysis published in peer reviewed journals indicates planetary clouds increase rather than decrease when the planet warms so the feedback response to an increase in forcing is negative rather than positive. Doubling of CO2 therefore results in less than 1C of warming rather than the IPCC 1.5C to 5C. The IPCC 1.5C to 5C requires the atmosphere to amplify CO2 warming.) —————————————————————————————————————————–
Expanding the carbon trading scam to the entire Western world (China, India, and Africa will not and/or do not have trillions of dollars to waste on scams) will not change the result. 100,000 times zero or 100,000 times a negative number is not a positive gain.
The mantra the science is over and anyone who criticizes policy that has the label “green” connected to is either in the pay of big oil or is a ‘denier” is propaganda to inhibit a discussion of the facts and basic arithmetical calculations.
John Marshall says:
September 16, 2011 at 1:18 am
Saying “get rid of this woman” creates division because it sounds as if you are anti woman or believe that Julia Gillard has no right to her elected office. I know it sounds like a misdirecting gripe but I think the office of Prime Minister does deserve respect, even when we believe there has been serious disagreement with the policies. Other mainstream media and ALP/liberal minds are bringing up these points, so just don’t do it. Don’t give them something they can keep going on about something which hurts us all and prevents people who can’t focus properly on understanding what it is you wanted them to actually understand. Prime Minister Julia Gillard deserves her due title, and I believe by being respectful you can get through to people that the carbon tax is something worth being cynical about. If you mention once her proper title and then say ‘she’ or ‘her’ then it would be perfectly acceptable, but I believe the negative connotations associated with your comment override the better point you try to make to the kinds of minds we wish to communicate to.
Up here in Canuckistan we have a couple of examples of greenie stupidity.
Ontario used to be the engine of the Canadian economy until they decided that green electricity was required to save Gaia and they have gone all heavily subsidized windmills and solar panels . . .
And in BC the great greenie plan to to Carbon Neutral means that schools and hospitals need to waste money buying carbon credits, which of course means less education and less healthcare.
And to make it worse, they are buying those carbon credits from Industry !
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+changing+province+carbon+offset/5412127/story.html
Drew says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:03 am
“…but I think the office of Prime Minister does deserve respect…”
No person, office or entity deserves respect. Respect is earned, not deserved.
If the occupant tarnishes the existing respect that the office or position once held, it is the fault of the occupant, not the person perceiving the repugnant behavior.
@Luke Warm
Good to see your list – it helps with the bigger picture.
@Polistra
It is good to know how the scam has been put together. From what you have said it seems clear that this was a calculation in advance to make sure there was no possibility of a great revolt. Those who will benefit (the “poor” as you say) would be crazy to protest against getting more cash, and only the most well informed of them with any conscience would even think about opposing it. It sure is a stitch up! Even Hogan couldn’t fix this!
Dear Ozzies:
You do NOT have my sympathies. Your government has already introduced a number of ‘green’ and animal welfare policies that have curtailed the freedom of your people (especially farmers). You made no noise about such regulations (violations) because they didnt affect you directly. Now that you are more likely to be affected,( even having to pay out of your own pockets !) you are up in arms. Shame on you! Now take your medicine.
The people of Australia have the government they deserve, i.e. the one they voted for. For some reason, it takes Australian voters many, many years to smell corruption, but they get there eventually (NSW state elections).
It is nonsense to say this tax cannot be repealed – just because one lawyer says so. I am sure the repealers can be just as creative as the enacters.
I wouldn’t worry it too much. The two houses of the Australian parliament have the unfettered right to strike down amend or enact new laws at the behest of the two houses. The only time this is not true is if it is contrary to the Constitution
The Gillard government cannot enact a law that that can’t be removed by the houses unless it first makes it Constitutional law.
Without going into detail, it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.
@William Howard says:
September 16, 2011 at 8:58 am
Thank you for confirming.
IMO I think the whole AGW hypothesis promoters are not worried about AGW But implementing the Global Marshall Plan of economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marshall_Plan