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.
Well, here in the USA, we’re just as stupid, with blinders on. We are abandoning coal in favor of natural gas as a way of reducing GHG emissions, despite peer-reviewed research showing the footprint of natural gas is higher than coal, once fracking-induced methane leakage to the atmosphere is accounted. I anticipate we will realize our error immediately upon having shutdown the coal plants and begin to shutter the natural gas fired plants.
Actually, it may turn out like tobacco taxes. With the government becoming reliant on the carbon taxation and working surrupticiously to ensure continued usage.
I’ve never seen such a bunch of self righteous, aggrandizing nonsense in one place. Complete garbage being spouted from self centered idiots. Why don’t you get your facts straight – this will NOT be a major drag on the economy, let alone turn us into a 3rd world nation. The CO2 calculations are an absolute dogs breakfast – 2020 is not the baseline year for a start. And who do you think you are with your talk of revolution? Che Guevara? This is Australia you Simpletons!
@Blvr
“A dog’s breakfast” means a mess or a muddle to most people, so why would there be a carbon tax based on a mess and a muddle, and one that is known to be harmless without knowing one end of the mess from the muddle? Self righteousness sounds a bit like a black put and a kettle somehow.
LazyTeenager says:
September 16, 2011 at 3:07 am
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.
=====
Not exactly Lazy, the “unrepresentative swill” of our Nation use Gore’s bile as the excuse to push the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. Approximately 50% of the impending TAX goes to ‘reimbursing’ low income welfare recipients and the balance goes to buying Australia’s seat at the UN’s future new one world socialist government. What happens when the 500 “biggest polluders” relocate off-shore to Asian locations ? … who will be the next 500 “biggest polluders” ? … and will they also relocate ? … and who then will eventually provide employment for Australians? Dwindling taxpayers will be yoked like oxen to the frame of the Socialism and whipped to provide more to feed the largesse of the great Socialist Empire.
“Blvr says:
September 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm”
If you believe a carbon tax/ETS WON’T be a drag on the Australian economy then I suggest you check out whats happening in New Zealand. Although there are other factors, the ETS was a major impact (And incidentally one reason why the NZ govn’t is scaling back and/or stalling expansion into other areas/industries). A cabon tax on big polluters, with exception to Victoria most of the biggest “polluters” are state owned utilities such as power plants, will result in those costs being passed on to consumers and busineses. It already is expensive to do business in Australia, companies are stalling projects, laying off workers AND sending work offshore. Anyone but the dimmest of the dim can see what is going to happen in a post carbon tax economy.
The problem with this pox climate tax, it has no logic to support it, that the majority of Australian’s
don’t agree with. The science of AGW is wrong. Carbon emissions have not abated, as Tony Windsor of the New England electorate have driven this, not just supported it. This government is behind the times, as always, and will not accept what is happening overseas that thwarts their reason for establishing an ETS and Carbon tax. Clean energy is going backwards. Victoria
is establishing new legislation for building more wind turbines, that might effect building more in their state. Mainly restricting the limitations where they can be built, ie.,10 km from not only towns but human habitation. Look might sound weird, but I watched a program on TV in Australia about wind turbines causing health problems with people who lived near there. Now I suffer from Menieres disease. When the program was transmitting I did develop funny problems too, like those that some of the people complaining were suffering from. I am not lying. When the program stopped the problem went away. You see with Menieres one has an inner ear problem,
often those symptoms do become a problem when there is a build up of fluid in the inner ear, usually from a viral problem. However visiting a EN & Throat specialist he said, don’t wear ear phones as low frequency auditory reception you can’t pick up normally will upset your ears. I suffered this watching this program? The health problems suffered by people complaining about these being the result of living near a wind turbine, mimic Meniere’s disease. A Canadian
report seems and suggests that the problems experienced are generated from the auditory system. Low but not physically noticeable generation of sound waves that irritate us. Not all people might experience it, particularly the farmers receiving $10,000k to $30,000k a year rent to establish ONE turbine on their property. Can’t blame them, one was receiving $150k a year on his property, barely a portion of the income he would receive in one year farming.
As if all this wasn’t evidence that Juliar and Bob are as low a snake’s rectum, they’ve also gone and set a deadline for public submissions on the 1100 page proposed bill at six days. So if anyone opposed to this bill and capable of more than just armchair slacktivism wishes to make a submission (instead of sitting by and crying about it afterwards), it has to be e-mailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au. by thursday 22SEP2011.
In addition, the usual round of public hearings one would expect ahead of a decision on such a major piece of legislation have been cancelled because Juliar says ‘there isn’t enough time’.
I’m away off to skim through the bill (found in all it’s bloated ‘glory’ here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/bills.htm) and cobble up a submission explaining why I conclude that the bill or parts of it are detrimental policy and could my elected leaders please consider the view of the electorate before making the poisoned challice law.
I’ve never felt compelled to do so before and it’s probably a futile guesture, but at least I’ll feel legitimately able to say ‘I told you so’ once the rot sets in.
@Benjamin it says a lot that you have already decided your view before reading the legislation.
Blvr, I’ve skimmed the legislation as rapidly as possible and in any case the general concept of the tax on thin air has been common enough knowledge. It’s only courtesy of an e-post from Menzies House that I’ve been made aware of the possibilty of making public submission on bills such as this (I was under the impression this was done by invitation after public consultations of the sort side-stepped by Juliar ahead of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 on the grounds that there isn’t enough time).
What my decision says, or should say to the intelligent reader, is that I am not suckered in by the gullible warming myth, nor the hype surrounding it (did you catch the piteous Gore-a-thon?); the hypothesis was dubious when I studied Earth Sciences in 1991, by now the theory and it’s champions are thoroughly devoid of any credibility to anyone with an open, analytical mind and no vested interest. The complete failure of the models (which seem to be the only ‘proof’ that gullible warming is human carbon dixide emission driven) to predict the weather during the first ten years of this century should set alarm bells ringing on it’s own, and we’re expected to support a ruinous tax on emissions of carbon dioxide to stave off the diabolical predictions these shite in-shite out models make about weather in 2100?
As a result of the bodgey excuse for ‘science’ used to justify anti carbon (dioxide) policies, I am predisposed to oppose to an additional tax on the false justification that said tax is claimed to miraculously prevent an imagined elevation of global temperature by a poofteenth of a degree some time in the distant future.
Additionally I understand that disuassion taxes such as these are designed to fail from the outset; how pointless would a carbon (dioxide) tax, or worse ETS be if it actually precipitated an elimination of carbon (dioxide) emissions? Taxes and trading are designed to earn revenue; if the taxed or traded commodity ceases to exist, so does the source of income. One need not be very cynical to understand that this tax is never intended to actually reduce carbon (dioxide) ‘pollution’.
Furthermore, to unilateraly take this route, while everyone else in the developed and developing world (except Norway) sits on the fence is at best what Sir Humphrey Applebee would describe as a ‘courageous decision’. In other words politically (or in this case economically) suicidal.
If the issue at stake were merely an unjustified tax that hobbles the Australian economy for a couple of years with no possibility whatsoever of influencing emissions, much less the weather, then that in itself wouldn’t neccessarily compell me to make a submission; I’d just bide my time until 2013 and join every sensible Australian over 18 in voting the beaked bloodnut and the watermelon puppet master out of office; however the business of poison pills and the unrespectable haste with which they wish to rush this monumental legislation through parliment is a couple of arrogant steps too far.
Furthermore what I have managed to read of the draft legislation, particularly with respect to the proposal to automatically transition to a supposedly market driven trading scheme, albeit with government imposed ceiling and floor carbon (dioxide) prices, and the way in which the proposal speaks of increased investment and job creation in the ‘green’ sector with a complete detachment from the hard reality of EUssr experience is truely beggaring belief. There is a good reason that EU trading of thin air emission permits has stagnated; sensible people don’t believe the foolish stories any more.
The only people who could honestly claim to support such an epic fail as this excuse for an act of parliment are unimaginative stock brokers, mediocre ‘auditors’, impressionable, easily bought low income voters or a snake oil salesmen with some second hand wind turbines to sell to the stupidest bidder.
Everyone else, and unimaginative diversions aside, any links to relevant papers, reports or findings would be most welcome, as I have an honest job to go to, a four year old nipper to raise and not so much free time to labouriously search for robust references to the submission within a week.
@Benjamin the underlying theory of AGW is sound, all substantial theories to the contrary have been discredited. There are still some loose ends but they are peripheral to the central hypothesis.
The tax will only reduce emissions marginally, but it is necessary to get other countries onboard. Treasury modeling has shown that it will not be ruinous to the economy; even if you don’t buy into the detail of that it is obvious that the overall effect will be minimal.
I’d say stop wasting your time and get on with your day job, which is surely more important.
@Patrick the key qualification you make is to ignore other factors, but how do you disaggregate the carbon tax from “everything else”? The reality is that the carbon tax I’d not the thing dragging on NZ at the moment (see “GFC”).
@Bushbunny your conclusion on the human impacts of wind turbines via watching a TV program and feeling strange seems about as scientific as those you hold on AGW. I guess you felt neither hot nor cold when you watched “An Inconvenient Truth” so concluded that AGW is incorrect as well.
@Streetcred That’s garbage, nobody is going to move offshore because of the carbon tax. The CEO’s are playing a scare campaign at the moment to try to get extra compensation (and doing a darn good job is results to date are anything to go by).
@Barghumer the dogs breakfast refers to the earlier calcs saying that emissions will reduce by 0.0000000000000000000001%. For a start the 5% reduction target is relative to a 2000 baseline, not a 2020 baseline.
In any case nobody is suggesting that Australia can fix this on its own, but we have to be part of the solution.
“Blvr says:
September 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm”
Unfortunately you are wrong. It’s already happening, the carbon tax will speed things up that’s all. The ETS *IS* dragging the NZ economy, which was damaged in the GFC, that is WHY the NZ Govn’t has scaled back their ETS targets and even stalled implementation in other areas/industries. It cannot be any more obvious than that.
@Patrick
Fortunately I am right – the GFC continues as the main factor driving down the economy in NZ. The carbon tax is a minor factor. The economy will pick up again once global demand returns to its former levels.
No doubt the NZ government is scaling back because it is running out of options, but you will see that this action will have minimal upward impact on the economy even as it had a minimal negative impact to date.
blvr: I said it was strange, possibly psychological. But there is a lot on the Internet about wind turbines and health effects of some people who live near them. I refused to watch or hire ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, but I enjoyed ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. But you know that DVD
has disappeared from our hire shop. I wonder why? But still available and a free download on
the Internet. Unfortunately one of the extras or special features included the one about solar activity and subatomic particles coming from the galaxy and how it effected rain fall and cloud cover. I can’t find that on the Internet.
For a clear and logical analysis of the political reasons for this piece of legislation, just go here;
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2011/09/climate-change-social-change.html#comments
“blvr says:
September 18, 2011 at 9:58 pm”
No, try the GFC and Chch quakes to name two factors. The fact that the ETS (Its NOT carbon tax) imposed an instant 8% incresase in the cost of living speaks volumes. The reason WHY the ETS in NZ has been “scaled” cack is because the economy CANNOT support it. It is a DRAG on the economy. BTW, not sure if you have been watching what is happening in the global economy, but it does not look good. Still an ETS/carbon tax is no drag on an economy, right?
@Patrick Nobody said that a carbon tax (basically the same as an ETS) has no effect on the economy. I’m saying – and so are many other well informed people – that the impact is trivial. Claims that it will be ruinous, turn Australia into a third world country etc are absolute garbage.
My Uncle, just now, returned from a trip to Australia. It was an anticipated trip of a lifetime. He returned somewhat broken-hearted due to the unreasonable high cost of everything. He just could not afford the extremely high prices for accommodation and food, for long.
I had plans myself, but have put them on hold because of his report. He will not return. This is just one example of how, artificially high cost can send your economy, into a downward spiral. All Australians will begin to feel the pinch and (I suspect) already are.
Concerned citizens, must understand, that there are much cheaper destinations available and no one is going to buy expensive Australian goods, just because they are Australian. Hope y’all get your government under control, before I leave this world, as it really is a place, I would like to visit. Good luck. GK
@Bushbunny The Swindle documentary probably disappeared from the video shop because it was full of claims that had already been discredited even before the documentary had been made. It took the general public a bit longer to catch on to that. Just another example of contrarians rolling out the same old tired stuff over and over again. But if you are not keeping up, it sounds rational.
BTW I don’t blame the majority for being taken in by the skeptics that are leading the charge against AGW. They are generally convincing at first glance, but it doesn’t take long to expose the flaws in their arguments.
@G Karst What codswallop. The tax hasn’t even come into force yet, so how can you blame high prices on it? Prices are high in Australia because demand is high and it is geographically isolated. Demand is high because it’s a great place to live and visit. The effect of the carbon tax on prices will be imperceptible to tourists and the general public alike.
Funny, I didn’t mention carbon tax, at all. But now that you mention it. It will make an expensive destination, even more expensive. Good luck with your high demand, it just decreased by two, so the demand, has decreased! To call tourist complaints codswallop, will improve the situation, I’m sure. Please carry on. GK
Blvr, you claim “…I’m saying – and so are many other well informed people – that the impact is trivial…”
If that were the case how do you propose that the carbon tax will succeed in it’s stated objective of reducing real emissions of carbon dioxide? If this tax, and the ETS planned to replace it after three years, are to succeed in materially lowering Australia’s emissions of carbon dioxide then the effect on energy and mobility costs must be more than trivial; otherwise no one’s energy or fuel consumption habits will change.
Unless of course you’re implying that the Clean Energy Bill 2011 has no intention of reducing Australia’s real carbon dioxide emissions; that it is merely Juliar’s latest short sighted idea to repay the debt left in the wake of her previous stimulous squander, or more likely to buy low income votes at the next election while concurrently placating the brown puppeteer for however long the Greens remain politically significant.
That would explain why domestic air, rail and sea transport are subjected to the tax, while inefficient long haul road transport is not, why everyone (including it appears selected ‘big polluters’) qualify for compensation, why the tax doesn’t apply to exported Australian coal or to emissions from decommissioned coal mines, why the tax doesn’t apply to international shipping (of the sort that carries the cheap consumer goods favoured by the voting masses).
This bill is nothing more than a modern version of Robyn Hood economic policy dressed in an unconvincing green costume. Well informed people can claim whatever they like, this bill is fundamentally illconceived or fundamentally deceitful; in either case fundamentally wrong.
Interestingly, while the propaganda claims loudly that motor fuel will be exempt from the carbon (dioxide) tax, the draft legislation remarks that road hauliers may opt into the scheme in lieu of paying the planned equivalent increase in fuel levy. Maybe I read this too quickly, but I suspect that if Captain Subtext were to activate his truth helmet and enable the auto-translate option, this should read ‘fuel, although not actually incurring the carbon (dioxide) tax in name, shall nevertheless be subjected to a carbon (dioxide) tax, but it shall not be named as carbon (dioxide) tax, it will be called increased fuel excise…’ But then the voters Juliar wants to buy probably all have free bus passes so their transport cost is compensated eh?
“…I’d say stop wasting your time and get on with your day job…” You counsel apathy, deceit’s neccessary ally, on the matter?
Thanks for your concern, but you’ll forgive me for choosing not to accept your advice.