This is about what it adds up too: If the carbon tax costs us, say, $10 billion a year (anyone have a better number?) we not only have to pay that, but we might lose another $20 billion a year as well.
As I’ve said before, you can’t compensate the nation. There is no productivity gain, no win, no efficiency improvement. There is no bigger pie if you have to cook with leather.
Treasury likes to pretend that the rest of the world is “joining” in the carbon schemes, and that by 2016, the US, Canada, Japan, Russia, China and India will have changed their minds and legislated a carbon price.
The Minerals Council of Australia wasn’t convinced that was a good plan, and asked the Centre of International Economics to analyze the Treasury modelling on the carbon price. The Treasury wouldn’t let them. (Who do they think owns the models?) Instead the CEI had to do their own modelling.
They are apparently the first to try to figure out what might happen in Australia if the rest of the world doesn’t leap head-first and suicidally into carbon pricing schemes.
The CIE finds losses that are 6 times greater:
- That while the Treasury says Australians will lose 0.3% of GDP by 2020, the CEI model suggests we’ll lose 2% of GDP by 2020 (per year).
- So Australia will be not just $32 billion poorer* by 2020, but $180 billion poorer (about $20 billion poorer per year.)
- Where the Labor-No-Business-Experience Government says investment will drop by 0.4%, the CIE put it at a 3.4% fall.
The good news just keeps on coming:
- Real wages could fall by nearly 2% instead of just 1%.
- The average household could lose, not just $5,000 in savings, but $11,000 (or so, it is a model after all).
- Electricity could rise by 30%, and not just the 10% the Treasury estimates.
Remember the Treasury estimates are the ones used to calculate the compensation.
Read the whole MCA report for more light entertainment.
Meanwhile there is light. Today, the Irish announced they are shifting away from climate action too (good for them).
PS: Brace yourself — Tomorrow parts of Australia will be hit with gratuitous displays of condescending smuggery, as the Carbon Tax passes the Senate. Suggest turning off their ABC.
—————————————
*That’s poorer than they would have been (by 2020) if Business As Usual occurred instead of the Tax on Everything that Moves.
I recall that some years ago the US senate voted by a margin of 94-0 not to ratify the Kyoto agreement. If they were never going to accept deindustrialisation of their country, which is what that vote meant, then any carbon tax or trading scheme never stood a chance. No other industrialised country ever will and I fear that when asked why, they’ll simply point their finger at the ruins of the Australian economy.
Pointman
10
Pointman, 2011 will be a reference year in the Australian national consciousness for at least the rest of this century: beware the possibility of a minority government of extremists that has the numbers to countermand the popular will with a program designed to dismantle the foundations of our economy based on a junk science fraud advanced by a politically fashionable cult. To hear Senator Bob Brown declare today “there will be no recision of this legislation” strengthens the resolve of the majority to purge the last vestiges of this national hijacking. Bob Brown will be as reviled a figure in Australian history as Sir John Kerr.
10
Hello Tom. I think “there will be no recision of this legislation”, is an empty threat. Any law can be rescinded. As for making it too expensive to do, that’s an empty threat too. Any computer system which processes the tax will have the current rate as a parameter. The easiest fix is to amend the parameter to zero and fire all the civil servants hired to administer the tax.
Pointman
10
Remember the retrospective “Bottom of the Harbour” tax legislation. That made what was legal when done illegal years later and created a liability that had to be paid.
Similar legislation rescinding retrospectively any property right created by the Carbon Tax legislation is clearly within the legal power of the Commonwealth.
This prospect is a clear reason why I changed my mind on whether Australia has too many levels of Government – clearly we do for a nation of small population but if you think I’ll support any move to make the Commonwealth Government omnipotent I’ll have to demur with the excuse that I have been shown that we need to limit the “bastards” – there is no way to keep ’em honest – Sorry Don.
20
Jo: My condolences to you and your countrymen. And thank you for the superlative reporting and commentary. Scientifically sound with a personal voice. And a real edge. I only hope that this folly is quickly understood as such, and soon reversed. And that the architects are unambiguously named and then sent into the political wilderness for the rest of their days. I worry, though, that (as with us under Obamacare) once things become law, they set their barbed hooks deep and the removal is slow and painful.
10
We need to remember that this whole thing started before the EU was diagnosed with having terminal Cancer.
So Australia (not just the ALP, but the NLP under Turnbull) felt they had cheerleaders in Europe, as well as the benign approval of the UN (the focus of Rudd’s and Gillard’s) career aspirations.
But attention spans in politics are short, and focus shifts to the next crisis (whether real or manufactured). Their current problem is now the fact that the European countries are all lending money, that they don’t have, to other members of the EU, who have no chance of repayment, in a desperate attempt to appear to be solvent when they are not. The current theory is that if you move the money fast enough, nobody will notice that there is not enough to go around.
In such an environment, everybody is in survival mode, crouching at the bottom of the trench, wishing their helmet was a bit bigger. It is no wonder that her, “look at me, look what I have done”, announcement was met with a resounding, “Yeah, whatever”.
The climate scam has ever been a European construction. They have always been the cheerleaders, and the only serious players. But now their focus is elsewhere, dutifully following Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need.
10
To oMan @#2: – yes the Australian Government legislators have set their barbed hooks deep. The legislation being passed will make it extremely expensive for any successive government to repeal the Carbon Tax. As Jo explains, the economic credibility of the decision to foist this tax upon Australians rests upon the premise that there will be global binding agreements on emission reductions by 2016. If this doesn’t happen, the carbon tax will become an economic noose around Australia’s neck by eroding our international competitiveness. Unfortunately the current economic uncertainty in US, Europe and now even China makes the chance of any global agreement extremely unlikely. For the sake of their own short term political survival and socialist ideology, our center left minority Labor government has sold out Australia’s future economic wellbeing. At least with Obamacare there was a tangible benefit to underprivileged Americans. With Australia comprising an inconsequential share of global emissions there will be no tangible benefit even if the positive feedback assumptions of the IPCC climate models were true. It is tantamount to economic suicide. This is in a word a disgrace!
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/carbon-tax-minerals-council-modeling/ […]
10
I too feel sorry for Australians. However, as you sink into the abyss/disease that is socialism, you can take solace in the knowledge that the world is watching the progression of your disease and may learn from your experience. Given that the US elected Barack Obama President, I don’t hold out much hope for us–but you never know. In any event, we’ll either learn and inoculate ourselves against the “carbon tax” disease, or we’ll join you in socialism hell. Keep fighting, the battle may be lost but the war isn’t.
10
Hullo. On June 6, I sent this to Torque PR in response to a release they had just sent out. I am now retired editor of The Vehicle Component but still active as an automotive industry and motoring editor for several magazines, in earlier days technical writer for leading Swedish engineering magazines. You can find me on Facebook with many climate realist friends like Roy Spencer, Joe d’Aleo, Lubos Motl, Alan Caruba, John Coleman, Christopher Monckton, etc.. I’d like to count you among them.
Regards from Tege Tornvall, [snip] Leksand, Sweden [snip. not necessary to give out your details]
+ + + +
Please! CO2 is no pollution. It is a gas of life, the nutrition of plants and the origin of the oxygene in the air through the photosynthesis of plants.
o In concentrations up to about 2 per cent, CO2 is beneficiary for plants and biological life, us included.
o It is neither visible nor has any noticeable smell. White “smoke” out of chimneys is water vapour, grey and black is soot and particles.
o In u-boats, up to 8,000 ppm CO2 (0.8 per cent) is allowed.
o 5-8,000 ppm were measured in earlier eras with exteremly rich biological life.
o Gardeners keep 1,000-1,500 ppm in greenhouses to make plants grow better.
o The present level of about 390 ppm (measured on volcanic island Mauna Loa) is historically very low.
o Earlier warmer periods with richer biological life generally had higher CO2 concentrations.
o Water vapour is by far the dominating greenhouse gas. CO2 is marginal.
o Both water vapour and CO2 are emitted from warm oceans and absorbed by cool oceans.
o Next to all harmful and toxic emissions can be captured and cleaned, but neither water vapour nor CO2 are toxic or harmful.
o The bandwidths where water vapour and CO2 respectively can absorb more energy are largely saturated. They cannot heat much more.
o All combustion of biomass in air generates water vapour, CO2 and various toxic emissions depending of molecular composition.
o The global biomass increased 6.2 per cent in the 1984-2004 period, as observed by satellite, driven by more CO2 from warmer oceans.
o CO2 from human activities is 8-9 Gtons per year, while 200 Gtons are exchanged between oceans, plants and atmosphere
o The atmosphere contains about 800 Gtons of CO2 againstclose to 40,000 Gtons in oceans. There is plenty more in soil and earth crust.
o Variations in solar activity drive the climate with minima in the Little Ice age, more activity since about 1850 and now a new, deep minimum since four years.
o Mars and other planets also warmed about 0.7oC, the same as Earth, in the 20th century, as observed by satellites.
All this can be found in scientific reports and observations available to the IPCC, but disregarded in its summary reports. IPCC stands for Intergovernmental (= political) Panel on Climate Change. Its mission is to investigate and prove man’s influence on climate. It consists of an office of about 40 and about 50 officials, politicians, administrators and academics assigned by governments, who write the summaries. All to be found on IPCC’s website, if you dig deeper than summaries and surface.
I urgently ask you to check all this for yourselves. This is no defence of gas guzzlers. There are many good reasons to save fuel, energy and resources and to stop, minimize and mitigate harmful emissions. But CO2 is not one. It is a gas of life.
Witt automotive greetings,
Tege Tornvall
Editor of The Vehicle Component but writing this independently.
10
“The global biomass increased 6.2 per cent in the 1984-2004 period, as observed by satellite, driven by more CO2 from warmer oceans.”
There’s a negative feedback right there. Increased CO2 increases global biomass which absorbs more CO2. Could the resultant lowering of CO2 reduce biomass, allowing for a renewed increase in CO2? With CO2 theoretically causing more water vapour, we get, duh, more rain. Negative feedbacks all around, backed up by the absence of any historical runaway global warming or cooling, despite the known reflective properties of ice.
Just out of interest, do greenies consider greenhouses with heightened CO2 levels to rule out such crops as ineligible for organic status?
10
Are you serious ?
I thought the models had been released by now..
I mean..they are making major and expensive changes to our economy with these models/stats.
And no one outside a small circle of politicians has seen this.??
If this is correct..this is beyond parody.
And my fellow greens swallowed this..?????
10
…and the staffers involved with the modelling exercise, of course. They may, or may not, have done the work internally. It might have been farmed out to a consultancy, but if it had there would have been evidence of a tender process (which is public) along the way. If no evidence of a tender process can be found then presumably the modelling was done by the Fed Treasury.
10
It would not be crazy to assume that State Governments may have looked at modelling the CO2 tax … it would be an oversight if they had not. They need to know the likely impact is on their respective people and economies. Needless to say, such modelling would be particularly complex and subject to many assumptions and estimates … sound a bit like climate modelling?
One thing I do know, we (State Government) don’t get to see the Fed Treasury models any more than Joe Public. The Feds hide this as much as they hide the operation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which divvies up the GST between the States. This is another entirely opaque system. Labor preaches transparent Government, but they do not practice it.
10
PS> Did I mention I have about as much faith in complex economic models as I do in climate models? I am sure I mentioned that along the way somewhere… Interesting, that as an honest economist (don’t laugh, it’s rude :P), I am quick to assert the huge limitations of economic models, but IPCC climate modellers, who are attempting to simulate an equally complex system, are dead sure of their results. I find this bothers me deeply … to paraphrase Lord Vader:
“I find their excess of faith disturbing…”
10
But thats the thing Bulldust they are not sure of their results.At best they are only 90% sure.
I was reading a paper by T Wrigley were they say that the forcing could be between 1.5-4.5C and possibly upto 6.3C but no lower than 1.5 because that might put it in the range of Linsden & Choi.They also said in the same paper that although the temp rise was the same between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 only the 1970-2000 rise was anthropogenic.So CO2 did not cause the first rise but it did cause the second.So a question might be what did cause the first rise?.
10
The PDF linked above from CIE is only 5 pages long. And only shows results. No links or references to code or data; just a vague reference to the “G-cubed” model. Big fat waste of time; and completely impossible to have a meaningful conversation that allows someone like me to assess veracity of opposing claims. Whole thing degenerates into a schoolyard “My model can beat your model any day of the week”.
One thing the 5 pager does assert is that Treasury did not bother to try and model what would happen “if
global action on climate change is patchy and fragmented”. If this is indeed the case, just another reason for me to distrust Treasury in its capacity to perform its duties to our community professionally, thoroughly without favour or prejudice.
10
Paul Keating’s banana republic; here we come.
10
….. The irony is, that we won’t even be able to afford bananas, in this republic of climate idiocy.
Anyway, it is done……… Labor will now be responsible for all and any problems that arise with this tax. I cannot see how it can possibly work….. Very interesting times ahead.
10
Where are the CAGW supporters that come here.?
Do they support hidden modelling for economics.
From either side…
Or do they condemn it..
Silence… would mean of course they tacitly support this hidden data..
Hidden economic models…jeezz.
Its beyond madness..if that was possible…
10
Morning Jo,
Here’s the latest on the UN. Gravy-Train-Syndrome.
In the last few days the BASIC group of countries met.
We all remember them – Brazil, Sth Africa, India & China – the countries that were scape-goated for sinking the EU’s (& Barack’s & Kevin’s) Copenhagen HOT AIR BALLOON.
The bottom line hasn’t changed a single 1/1 000 000th. (A bit like the world’s temperature post the full impost of our ‘Clean energy bills’ in say 2013.)
That is, these insightful negotiators say they believe in AGW. — but they won’t comply with any Kyoto or post-Kyoto rectrictions until they get lots of ‘Jerry Maguires’ (SHOW ME THE MONEY!!)
Now clearly you don’t have to be a rocket scientist (so even Wayne Swan should get this one) to know that US. with 9% unemployment & EU. with 3-6 sovereign debts now over 100% of GDP. the chances of BASIC getting anything like the levels of hush money they’d like in Durban is, to borrow a Paul Kelly lyric, ‘less than a cinder in snow’!!
So in the coming few weeks, Labor et al, are going to look even more out of touch than they already do.
Regards, reformed warmist of logan.
10
Indeed that would be the case if the MSM published those facts. The MSM will not and so Joe P will live on in blissful ignorance.
10
To the Eurotrash treasurer of the year, you might want to take note of the following and then ponder on the fact that a representative of sovereign fund in Communist china – it is reported through Al Jazeera – quite rightly states the following fact about the perils of an out of control welfare state:
The link is here:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html
Now think about that for a minute. It is a report from aljazeera of a statement made from a chinese sovereign wealth fund on the perils of an out of control welfare state!
Wealth redistribution has not, will not and cannot be effective in the longer term.
I myself grew up in a country that first introduced aspects of a welfare state. I would say the original architects of the welfare state would be spitting chunks over what it has become in many countries.
It has gone from helping those who cannot help themselves and working people in their hour of need to an overarching beaurocratic nanny state supported politically by the lazy, indolent and tinkered with by the incompetant, selfish and ignorant.
10
Come on Madjak, stop beating about the bush.
If you don’t like it, why don’t you just come out & say so.
10
MadJak is seriously into nuance.
You would not want to be ther,e when MadJak gets seriously out of nuance.
10
Ok then,
No I don’t like it, I don’t like it at all.
Rereke-lol.
10
Of course the co2 tax is a total fraud and can be proven so by understanding simple primary school maths.
I heard Combet repeat the lie this morning that they are introducing the co2 tax to “tackle climate change”.
These people are delusional and mad if they really believe this lie.
As well this delusional govt is suffering from a type of bi polar dysfunction as well. This is supposed to be about reducing co2 emissions but the same govt is trying to increase coal exports every year.
It seems it’s okay for other countries to increase co2 emissions (using our coal) and provide more jobs and industry for their people but it is totally wrong for OZ to do likewise.
10
Insanity is immune to logic.
10
WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIALISES: SCIENCE OF AGW IS ‘ FAR FROM SETTLED’
Posted 26 October 2011:
The United Nations will convene its 17th annual climate-change conference next month in Durban, South Africa, with the purpose of sealing a new carbon-cutting deal to succeed the soon-to-expire 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
* PM Julia Gillard told by G20 you’re on your own on carbon
* Preparations for the mega carbon footprint event of the year are in full force.
* Swan hides his dodgy carbon model
* Some councils’ power bills will rise by as much as $300,000.
10
How can so many politicians be so ignorant about CAGW? And how can so many politicians be so reckless with the future of Australia? Unless of course they have been infiltrated and dominated by those who will prosper by the carbon tax folly.
And why are the people of Australia not actively fighting this obvious corruption instead of just complaining?
10
Good question and on face value it would appear we are all dumb and lazy for letting this happen, but in our defence i would like to submit the following:
When Kevin 07 stated he would introduce an ETS his numbers dropped dramatically (albeit due to many issues) and with a little help from the Greens his ETS was canned. After the “night of the long knives” Gillard stated “there will be no carbon tax” The LNP said the same only the Greens wanted a ETS/TAX. Come election day about 90% of the population voted for a party that clearly stated there would be no carbon tax/ETS.
So we did all we could short of a revolution to stop this insanity and the only reason why we have one now is because we are governed by a dictatorship, Gillard squashed democracy in this country under the heel of her boot.
10
… and the moral of the story is, “don’t trust Labor on anything!”
Remember Garret’s first major political gaffe (almost unreported by the MSM)? Words to the effect, “we’ll change it all once we are in power.” The context being that they would say one thing prior to the election and then once elected would implement something different.
Stupid Australians!
10
And to think that Peter Garrett left the Nuclear Disarmament Party because it was taken over by extremists. What the hell is to the left of communism?
10
The politicians are not ignorant about CAGW. To them it has had value because it “excites the masses” and keeps them occupied. Besides, it has been a way of gathering more money to feed the bureaucratic hydra that grows a new head every time some misguided politician tries to rein it in.
We live in a world of “magic and miracles”, where “nothing is real” (to quote the Beatles), apart from the propaganda built on trivia.
CAGW just happens to have been a very successful propaganda line. It has lasted, in various forms for over forty years. Not a bad history for a lie – but it is now time for it to be pensioned off. So we need a new idea – keep your eyes peeled, it will be a doozy – it has a tough act to follow.
10
Combet ~ “We will tax C02 to tackle climate change”
Kevin ’11 ~ “The climate changing is the moral challenge of our time”
Greece/Italy/Spain/Ireland/Others ~ “Lend us more money so we can pay pay our debts.”
The US Fed ~ “Print more money to solve the subprime ‘crisis'”
The IMF ~ “Borrow more money and give it to us so we can bail your country out”
Honestly, you couldn’t amke this stuff up. It’s like a monty python script, but alas, it is real, and we are collectively getting the leadership we deserve.
Our population have become dumb ignorami to let this sort of stupidy stand without the most basic of challenges.
10
Put that way .. our “leaders” clearly don’t know what they are doing.
10
[…] Labor Party Big Economics Idea: Pay $10 billion to *lose* $20 billion more! […]
10
No Way Canada is going to commit econocide!
10
Just some of the individual provinces…
10
After going through the previous Nova article, the Australian source for that article, and the huge number of threaded comments, I am disappointed that Labor seems to be largely getting away with another sinister aspect of this tax. Much attention has rightly been drawn to the fact that the G20 has told us that, with this tax, we won’t be following the rest of the world; we will be leading the rest of the world and they won’t be following. But as I was trying to get across in the previous Nova thread, this is only part of it. Let’s recall the lie that Gillard told that allowed her into government, in turn allowing her to introduce the tax that she and Swan swore we wouldn’t have:
That comment of course was made six days before the federal election. The anniversary of that election is on Sunday and in the same week the Treasurer Wayne Swan said this about the Carbon Tax:
As I read that again I still find myself stunned that they actually still did it. And recently we had the sickening spectacle of the government having a self-congratulatory cuddle, in parliament, for having pulled off the big con, the con that allowed them to gain government. But at the G20, another big lie has been exposed. Recall what Ross Garnaut said:
Now compare that to what was said to Gillard at the G20 (emphasis mine):
So far from dragging our heels in the lemming race, we are blitzing the field. G20 tells us how brave Australia is in leading the way. And we aren’t just leading the way, they tell us we are ‘going it alone’. They use diplomatic speak for, “You are crazy!”. This exposes that, just like the big lie that we wouldn’t get the tax, the reason given for its implementation, that we need to catch up to the rest of the world, is also a lie. And that is the reason that was given. Anytime it was pointed out how little effect (next to zero) Australia’s sacrifice would have on the world’s temperature, even if the science was right, the apologetics would be that Australia needs to do its fair share. We now know what we we previously suspected, that its fair share would be to run the other way, fast!
So this lie isn’t peripheral; it’s pivotal and needs to be put alongside the lie that there would be no carbon tax under a government that Gillard leads.
10
Jo,
Will this tax not make Australia less competitive in the world stage?
Canada has lost a great deal of manufacturing jobs. First to the US and then China.
But boy, do I enjoy the cheaper deals! 🙂
10
Yes Joe, this tax will erode Australia’s international competitiveness and move carbon intensive jobs into countries with less stringent or less efficient means of energy production. Australia’s folly will become even more so when it becomes evident by 2016 that the rest of the world has bigger fish to fry than CAGW (like GFC part II).
10
Jo,
I am absolutely amazed at this, especially since so many of the prime voices against this insanity live in Australia. In the 60’s, when I was in the service I met a number of Aussie sailors and always had the impression that Aussies were a no nonsense society. Have they gone insane since then?
Well….by way of consolation, there is nothing like a good epidemic to get things started, and Ronald Reagan would have never been president if Jimmy Carter hadn’t been president before him.
Rich Kozlovich
Paradigms and Demographics
10
Socialists of the Green radicals ilk running Australia was never part of the deal. FOOLS!
I hope that my fellow ‘conservative’ Australians who voted out the Howard Government are today rightly proud of the consequences of their selfish decision.
There’s little hope of Labor voters ever understanding the outcomes because they are generally welfare orientated (using somebody else’s tax money) … but conservative voters who dilly-dally on the Left are culpable.
10
It pains me to see the senseless squandering of opportunity in these years of relative plenty. Damn thier eyes.
10
Audio of both gillard and swan Blatently Lying to all Australians prior to the last Australian election about NOT introducing a carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax…..
http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm
The only future for all Australians under this communist tax will be utter Povety !
Time for an election to allow the people to speak on this issue !!
NOW !
10
A shadow has befallen the democratic process in this country as the Senate has just passed the ETS laws to the cheers, roars, clapping and high fives all round from the labor/green coalition.
This is a dark day for Australia and i cannot see a way out.
10
Well it’s just happened. The left-wing members of the Senate have just extended their collective middle fingers to the majority of the Australian voting public and voted this abomination of a tax into law.
This is such a sad day for this formerly great country. And if these figures that are quoted in this article come even close to being correct, then we (and our kids) are in serious financial manure.
The only small amount of comfort that I can take is that I will be able to look my 4 year old daughter in the eye, and tell her that I had no part in this betrayal. And the planet will still be flourishing in her lifetime and her following generations whilst Australia becomes a third world s*ithole thanks to this pointless tax.
10
http://s3.amazonaws.com/hhh-silos/hashed_silo_content/silo_content/35002/resized/teamwork-share-victory-share-defeat-66d276.jpg
I thought that this summed up the ALP perfectly. They all claim that they are united behind Gillard and her carbon tax. They may well be sharing “victory” today, but they are just as surely going to be sharing “defeat” come next election.
10
Good summary of the before and after scenario of the carbon tax in Australia from Sean McHugh at #20.Black Armband Day for us 🙁 but everywhere else on the globe the Greens are wearing the black armband in mourning for the death of the carbon salesman.
10
Ok, consider this my contribution to the “condescending smuggery” foreshadowed by the OP.
Smuggery On:
YEEEHAA! Carbon Price Passed!!! Well done our Democracy, working as it should!!!
Smuggery Off:
10
Hear, hear.
10
Gee I hope you guys are tax payers I am going to really enjoy taking your money in pension and compensation.Well at least I will live well till the money runs out. 😉 🙂
10
Nothing wrong with smuggness, winners are grinners and all that.
Catamon i have one question…no make that two as one just popped into my head.
Firstly is your name short for Catamon[gst the pigeons]
Now for the one that popped into my head:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/11428884/pm-betrays-her-own-workers-oppn/
Please read and digest the above story and tell me if you still have the same high level of smuggery or do you think this is good policy before its time.
10
As to naming conventions, more a gratuitous reference within the family than what you said. Would i ever be so disrespectful as to consider skeptics pigeon (toxic aerial rats) like?? I think not.
As to your linked article, the comments are from Greg hunt, who is a moron. While i’m not a complete authority on it, I understand that the company in question and its directors have rather extensive liabilities hanging over them unrelated to its operations in Australia. Mainly to do with that gas fire and oil spill in the Timor Sea. So, unsurprising they might be shelving expansion plans for reasons that have nothing to do with any Carbon Price.
So, just for you:
Smuggery on:
YEEEEHAAAAA!!!
Smuggery off:
10
There was nothing sarcastic in my question regarding your name although it comes as no suprise to me that you took offence.
The article, so ok the whole thing is a crock because Greg Hunt was speaking so it shall not be discussed.
But if were to be discussed the real reason why the company pulled up stumps and left for China is because of something totally unrelated.
I wish i was born with the type of brain that could dismiss logic and common sense on a whim just to maintain a faith………..no i really mean it….really i do. I could think of nothing better than to travel through life dismissing things that cause me to think.
I can only imagine the wordly bliss that you must feel for example:
You could not give two hoots that this tax will drop the temps by 0.00C
You could not care less that by 2050 we will have dropped our emissions by 2% and bought permission to continue BAU with the other 78%
You honestly believe on one hand we should stop burning coal but on the other think increasing our coal exports to China etc is good business acumen
You agree that developing legislation in such a way that even you could not recind it is a good idea.
10
catamon @ #28
Obviously not a spokesman for democracy.
10
SMH is running a poll. Vote here.
10
Interesting to see the poll results so far (47% For vs 46% against)……..
Either a large group of people suddenly became CO2 tax loving morons or GetLost! have rallied the troops.
Very different results from what we have seen in the recent past…
10
When I put this comment in it was 46% for, 46% against and 8% not sure with about 2800 votes cast. Now it is 47% for and 47% against and 6% not sure with over 16000 votes cast. Smells like the organised left have tried to stack the numbers (a tactic they have had a lot of practice at in Labour Party pre-selection votes …) and still cannot beat the independent people on the web who can actually think for themselves.
10
A depressing day but here’s a message from Menzies House which cheered me a bit
As Confucious (I think) said ‘the longest journey starts with a single step’ or in this case a few steps
10
Worst nightmares? Mr Andrews doesn’t have much of an imagination.
Seriously? This from the Managing Editor.
Well that would be a sorry fact were it true as he doesn’t have a single peer-reviewed paper casting doubt on climate change.
10
Oh luverly. Menzies House capitalizing on the on the political despair of the downtrodden skeptics by soliciting funds at an opportune moment?
Nice types Not.
10
As always, the sooks on the right just can’t get over the fact that they don’t own the whole country.
10
Keep watching, John. It’s nothing to do with “the right”. The burning public anger won’t just fade away. Trust me. I’ve been a witness of public life and politics for a very, very long time. This national wealth tax will eventually be run out of town with great national celebration and a cautionary reflection about what we should never, ever allow to happen again at an election. The public learning will include recognition of the Greens as a fatal national disease and the banishing of Labor from government until the other side of 2030, extending to forever if it doesn’t democratise itself.
10
Why is it that apologists for the the left are so smarmy and oblivious to the point? Since when, in a democracy, do we need to own the country to expect our leaders not to lie, firstly by promising that there would be no carbon tax, and secondly, by saying that we needed to catch up to the others in our one-lemming lemming race?
John, have you yet apologised to WUWT for saying that they were disappearing your comments?
10
I got two of those emails and my thoughts were same as yours. deleted ’em
10
Well it was finally rammed through despite pre-election promises to the contrary, and the bitchiness in Canberra continues:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/11476302/carbon-tax-to-become-law/
Bob Brown thinks we are saving the plent… delusional or what?
Meanwhile Christine Milne shows what that really means, and what the real Greens agenda is:
Funny that… the “last century” (heck, last millenium) business of mining is what is propping Australia up right now. Without that we would be just like the rust-belt states in the USA or failed Euro states. This is the Green agenda writ large for all to see… is this what ordinary Australians want for this country? I honestly hope Bruce and Sheila Average are not that ignorant.
10
Oh i just remembered all of the amendments tabled by Xenophon (no pokies guy) and the libs were voted down. One of the amendments was to stop industry from having to buy permits (ETS permits) right from the start and instead buy them when the ETS kicks in in 2015 or 2016 or something. Currently the legislation would mean energy companies would buy permits now to be used in 4 years time and all that would be achieved is higher electricity prices.
This amendment was blocked by the “ideas” men and the red devil party in the senate…….can anyone tell me why?
It was blocked because between now and when the permits are needed there is an election, so lose election and no permits tax banished instead of lose election keep tax because permits already issued.
So in summary this useless peice of s…t government is going to drive up the cost of electricity to the voters years ahead of time just so they can land mine the legislation so it cannot be removed even if they get voted out.
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY
10
The fact that economics is a difficult “grasp” was illustrated recently when I engaged a couple of CSIRO scientists in a discussion on the current state of “alternative” power generation.
Being on my best behaviour the opener involved a comment that “It’s great that we have the CSIRO working on “alternatives” and considering the huge amount of Solar energy available, there must be some way of getting a small part of the Sun’s output to use for ourselves”.
I was a bit taken aback by the conversation when told that solar power was already “cost effective” and competitive with coal fired generation and so bit my tongue and moved on to the weather or something like that.
The last words I remember were “as soon as a price is set on carbon” and the rest became a blur.
And so, today we have set a price on carbon in the same month that the world announced that we now have worldwide many hundreds of years worth of energy to be had from mining coal and shale seams for the gas.
These two brilliant scientists are intelligent, they are just leaderless, and don’t realise that cheap coal seam gas and a “carbon tax” will end manufacturing and business activity in Australia.
It is true that leadership does require courage and without true leadership we will end up like Europe sooner than we might like.
10
Not intelligent scientists. Intelligent scientists sit down and think, research and calculate before they speak, instead of regurgitating dogma.
A rational decision can only be made by logic applied to observations made in the real world.
Solar is “cost effective” if you’re off-grid by many kilometres. Even then, only in comparison to an ordinary diesel genset where you have to cart fuel every month. Not that you won’t be needing the genset after solar installation. It gets dark at night. Just the number of trips to cart fuel will be reduced.
10
Hi Bernd
I knew I was being too generous in seeing them as “brilliant scientists –intelligent”.
I was making allowance for their youth, early thirties, and their jobs; to focus on how to align the mirrors etc.
The strategic thinking which should have been provided by their “leaders” was obviously distorted.
But, as you infer, anyone who equates the presence of a “Carbon Price” with process efficiency most definitely needs more guidance about the real world.
10
What a great day today is!
The foundations for a clean energy economy have been laid. Not only that, according to Forbes business magazine we have “done it the right way” by using the ETS revenue to fund a tripling of the tax free threshold! This will allow thousands to re-enter the workforce.
Reinforcing this it seems the MRRT revenue will fund superannuation for the low paid (the casual, mostly female workforce) so together these laws will revolutionise the economy. And the NBN will add its bit to the huge reforms.
Some of you are fearful of these changes, as some people always are. But they are necessary reforms and for pretty much all of you the reforms will leave you better off. Do some actual reading!
Along with all this, the polls show Labor and the PM regaining support. The Libs WONT be able to reverse the reforms, so find out how best you can benefit instead of just whinging!
10
Stop taking whatever drugs you are on!
If you think that the imposition of an enormous tax on everything based on the fraud of global warming is goo the you have some serious mental problems!
By the way are you volunteering to pay for our family’s addional costs of living for your gaia religion????
10
“goo the” should have been “good then”.
I am so angry today I can hardly even type !
10
Fraud of global warming? Oh dear! Get out and smell the coffee! The science of AGW is well established, despite what frauds like Monckton and Plymer might say.
Your financial situation will likely be better after the ETS kicks in July 1 next year, if you act intelligently you can be quite better off.
Start doing some real reading and stop being an aging loser!
The ETS is here and will stay, Gillard is PM and will stay that way past 2013. Those are realities and railing against reality is insane, reality just is!
Find out how you can benefit and be glad the ETS is law!
10
So we no longer need a working group one of the IPCC. Why waste resources on something that’s well established right?
And the scientists involved with WG1 of the next report must know this, yet they accept the free travel, accomodation meals etc to attend meetings after meetings at exotic locations to do what for something that’s well established?
Must be taking advantage of the kudos that being involved with the IPCC brings. That’ll be a form of fraud wouldn’t you say Maxi?
This would have to be the first instance in history where individuals are better off because a government takes money off them via a tax eh Maxi?
But if you mean we’d be better off by watching our power use, we can do that without a tax and be better off still wouldn’t we?
Can you see the fault in your logic Maxi? Are people better off because the government increases petrol tax annually? Name me one person that’s better off because fuel prices go up regularly Max.
Do you now see the fault in your logic? (or is that the governments sales pitch that you’ve fallen for? poor gullible Maxi)
10
Bar Humbug @ #36.1.2.1
Why would Maxine be able to see the fault in her logic, what logic? She only gives us unsupported assertions. There is no logical argument in her statement, just her insistence that what she says is so, along with a liberal serving of smarmy triumphalism.
10
I said a little prayer for you when I read this.
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have this attitude if a jackboot was assaulting you behind closed doors. That’s what goes on in a fascist state where the government is so audacious it taxes the air you breathe. If you think that doesn’t already go on, ask Dr Haneef about it.
10
Maxine said:
Well why didn’t you just say so earlier? It sounds great! But instead of taxing at $23 a ton, why not make it $230 a ton? That way we will be even more financially comfortable. But what to do with all the extra money? Don’t suppose you have a bridge for sale?
10
Confused gullible Maxi says…
Thousands entering the workforce? You mean people who were previously idle? You mean they will now partake in ECONOMIC ACTIVITY?
How will they get to their new jobs? Will they be in an office with lights air cons and other power on? or will they use tools like drills or cement mixers or lawnmowers etc etc.
Do you know the result of increased economic activity Maxi? let me spell it out for you….
Cee Aye Arrr Beee Ooooo Ennnn, Eeee Emmm Emmmm Eye Esss Esss Eye Oooo Ennn Esss It spells CARBON EMISSIONS
So your hero taxes us to reduce emissions, causing an uptick in the economic activity, leading to increased emissions.
DO YOU SEE THE FAULT IN THIS LOGIC MAXI? You poor poor gullible lemming you. If I didn’t despise brain dead morons like you I’d give you a comfort hug.
10
Maxine
“Some people” have their eyes open and have some idea of the ramifications flowing from their decisions. You will no doubt plead total ignorance when the proverbial hits the fan, claiming that “no one” could have foreseen the negative consequences for our economy. No doubt, when it comes to pass, you will conveniently forget the warnings given by people here and hide behind the shared delusions of your ilk that the ends somehow justify the means.
You see, we know full well that the current government couldn’t find it’s own backside in a snowstorm, has no idea how to manage the economy responsibly, fritters away our hard earned tax dollars like it’s going out of style, and is oblivious to the current economic environment we find ourselves in that called for maintaining a sensible fiscal approach to maintain our competitive advantages on the world stage and taking advantage of our lack of debt comparative to other comparable Western democracies. Instead, we have blown the bank balance to hell, maxed out the credit cards and are now in the process of driving a stake into the heart of our most profitable industries, to achieve what? A pipe dream of alternate energy where most if not all of the viable options are off the table- either startlingly clever or incredibly dumb- I’ll leave you to guess which one.
10
Maxine @ #36
Do some actual reading!
10
Obviously unfamiliar with the tax system Maxi. The EFFECTIVE tax free threshold will be raised by about $3000-4000, not tripled.
Isn’t there a bridge somewhere missing your attendance?
10
Joanne,
$10 Billion per annum sounds close to the mark, but note how no one has detailed exactly what the all up take for the Government will be.
All the talk is on the compensation package, which, of itself is a con.
Note how that compensation package details compensation to (some, but not all) individual householders who will get compensation (probably) a little more than what the increase of electricity is for their household.
Electricity is consumed in three sectors, the Residential sector which consumes 38% of all electricity generated, Commerce (37%) and Industrial (24%)
That compensation goes only to the residential sector.
The remaining 61% of electrical power consumption will not be compensated.
Each and every part of those other 2 sectors will have to pay the increase in electricity costs passed on by all the
derdy polludersPower Companies, so each and every one of them will have to increase their costs to cover those increased overheads, and please don’t think that increase will be small. Every shop will have a much larger electricity cost, more than in any residential situation.And if that compensation package is paid as an increase in pensions, or in a decrease in tax paid, hence a slight increase in weekly wage, don’t tell me everyone will be keeping aside that small amount to put towards the electricity bill.
When that comes in, the average home bill will increase by around that 30%, and the average is around $350 per quarter, so it now becomes around $450 per quarter. Pensioners find it tough now when the electricity bill comes in, let alone having to find the huge increase.
And please, I know that there’s people out there who will say that this will make people find economies at home to save that extra.
Hah!
That just will not happen.
What are you going to do, turn off the hot water system, turn off the fridge, the biggest consumers, cook less, go without heat in Winter or aircon and fans in Summer.
Lighting makes 8% of your bill so any savings there is barely 10% of that 8%, (barely 1% in all) so it’s nowhere near enough to compensate for the 30% overall increase.
No, people will just consume what they already do consume.
Some green supporters might actually try and make savings but I’d like to see the looks on their faces when that first bill comes in, and they find that what they have done has come to almost nothing.
There’s nothing you can pare back considerably to make the savings that will cover the increase.
A 30% increase in cost means a 30% saving on electricity consumption. Work it out, if that average is around that $350 per quarter, which distils to about $4 a day, and now you have to save a quarter to a third of that.
Outside the residential situation, a 30% reduction to cover that increase, so imagine shutting down every shopping mall every third day. Imagine shutting down every hospital every third day. Every high rise building every third day. All the road traffic lighting and control. All the rail system every third day, and on and on.
It’s not the big polluters who are paying this tax.
It’s every consumer of electricity in the Country.
The power companies are just the middle man, holding the money while it is transferred to the Government who then gives some of it back.
This is a con of the highest order. Al Capone would be so proud of this Government.
Tony.
10
Thats the thing Tony the Mafia did not think it could get away with taxing AIR
10
We had a portent of a possible impact yesterday here in Rockhampton, and while some of you may think I make this stuff up to add impact to what I say, here’s the link to the article in the local news media for Rockhampton.
Crash cuts power and starts a fire
An MVA not one mile from where I live caused the power to go off. It was followd half a second later by an almighty bang, a little like a hand grenade going off, (something I have heard once in my Military life)
When I walked to the corner, everyone was on the street looking. When asked about the bang four people pointed in different directions.
Knowing that sound travels at a set rate, and knowing the bang was only half a second from the power cut, it could only have been from a local power pole. I thought it was a transformer that let go, but there were none on the closest poles.
As it transpired, the truck in the MVA hit a power pole support, flexing the pole and the wires. As this was the 66KV main line, the wires came together causing a massive overload felt back through the system, and also burning out the touched wires which fell down, still partially live.
It blacked out an area around 5 square kilometres.
Within around a quarter hour, there were sirens everywhere, 4 Police vehicles Fir engin, Fire rescue, 2 ambulances and 2 unmarked police vehicles as well, all heading past us, and over the railway.
Some people had power back within a couple of hours but we didn’t get power back until after 7 PM, more than 8 hours in all.
Besides repairing the fallen pole, and the HT wires, they then had to fault find back through the system.
To protect residential power boxes, every third pole or so have HT circuit breakers. large fuses if you will, and what had given way with that bang was one of those breakers on the pole at our corner.
Ours was the last to be fixed, and those guys working up that pole can have that work, and they deserve all they’re paid.
Now, the point of the exer4cise when referred to what I wrote above is that power was off for more than 8 hours, which is around one to two thirds of overall daily consumption.
Nothing. No power at all.
Luckily it was relatively cool, but you don’t realise how much electricity is a staple of life until you have to do without for an extended period.
This is around that 30% of overall residential consumption I mentioned above. That’s how you can save on the increase because of this TAX on CO2 emissions from power plants. Just turn off your power for most of the day.
Yeah! Right!
We kept the freezer closed, and most of the stuff stayed frozen or close to it. We lost some bacon in smaller packages that will be eaten tonight with some Pasta, but we only had coffee with hot water from the tap. No clothes washing, no dishwasher to cycle.
We had a salad for dinner by candle light. I did some work in the garden and got through 200 pages of ‘Ireland – Awakening’ by Edward Rutherfurd, but there was (literally) nothing else to do.
That’s what life under a CO2 tax will be, with (inevitable) power rationing and power cuts, and for all you Greenies and supporters of this legislation, it’s a simple enough thing to do. Just turn your power off at the Master Breaker in the Power Box for 6 to 8 hours a day. That way, you’ll save your compensation package.
This minor MVA caused the whole Rockhampton region’s power to ‘flutter’ and without those HT breakers atop the pole, the whole area would have gone down, instead of just 1,000 consumers, some of them for more than 8 hours.
Don’t think I’m being dramatic to make a point. Cuts like this will soon be inevitable.
Tony.
10
You are being way overdramatic. Because you have no facts you use anecdotes.
10
Me!
No Facts!
Oh, Maxine, really.
I’ve been writing about this for nearly 4 years now. I have a list of thousands of sites visited, fact checking, correlation, cross checking, proving, comparing, etcetera, and now more than 500 Posts plus on this and related matters.
Me with no facts.
Maxine.
You really want to see someone with no facts, then put on some makeup.
Tony.
10
I am sorry to spoil the party going on here, but $10 billion per annum is about 0.008% of GDP.
That actually isn’t much money.
Also I can’t seem to find any reference that features a calculation of this figure.
10
Mr Burns,
it’s an easy enough figure to tally really.
Australia’s emissions, (mind you this is just CO2 emissions, and does not take into account the other 20 or more gases that are taxed at a CO2 equivalent) come in at just over 400 Million tonnes.
Phew!
Man, that’s a huge amount.
Well not really, as that is only 1.32% of Worldwide emissions.
$400 Million tonnes X $23 per Tonne comes in at $9.2 BILLION, and beware, that’s just CO2 alone.
Tony.
10
Check your math. you’re about 2 decimal places out. (or lose the % sign)
10
Really, is it that hard for you to work out?
Did you bother to look up how much CO2 Australia releases per annum and multiply by $23? (Quick maths is 570,000 x $23 = $13 billion.)
But since you seem unable to do basic maths (Australia’s GDP is around $1 trillion, hence 10 billion would be 1.0% not 0.008%.)
10
Mr Burns
Must be a true labour man.Only they would think $10 billion is not much money.
It sure is a lot of money when you don’t have it.
10
It’s not much money when it’s not his. I’m sure if Mr Burn’s lost $20 bucks in the street he’d be whinging about it for weeks- but $10 billion- Governments can just print some more of it if you’re running low, surely!
10
And we don’t pay that tax, not as such anyway.
The way the revenue is being applied will boost our economy.
Cameron (among many others) is in favor of our ETS:
Dear Julia, you have it right on your carbon tax
BRITAIN’S Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, has personally congratulated Julia Gillard on her carbon tax policy in a letter penned from the desk of 10 Downing Street.
In a clear embarrassment to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his Coalition – who have vehemently opposed any price on carbon – Mr Cameron described the federal Labor government’s move on climate change as “bold” and “ambitious”.
Mr Cameron said he was convinced climate change was one of the “most pressing threats to [a nation’s] prosperity and security”.
“I have always been clear that in order to tackle it [climate change] effectively, all major economies will need to take robust action to curb their emissions and put their economies on a more sustainable, low-carbon footing,” he said.
The Tory Prime Minister – who, like Ms Gillard, leads a minority government cobbled-together in a coalition of unlikely and ideologically contrasted political allies – reiterated his stance that the world’s largest economies had a responsibility to address climate change.
“Your announcement sends a strong and clear signal that Australia is determined to make its contribution to addressing this challenge,” he said. “It will add momentum to those, in both the developed and developing world, who are serious about dealing with this urgent threat.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima … z1d5kIqXLa</em.
Cameron is moving to introduce an ETS in the UK.
10
The dumbest PM in British history giving accolades to the dumbest PM in Australian history. Fabulous recommendation.
10
What would one expect from a British PM who has an undergraduate arts degree from Oxford in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Or from our own PM whose only work experience was as a union lawyer. Thus one can see why neither is likely to understand anything about climate science and be suckers, as they no doubt are, for the apparent nonsense that a de-industrialised world is a better one.
In other words only a fool would take much notice of their pronouncements on something neither understands. Unfortunately the implementation of their policies, based in ignorance, has the potential to seriously damage the economies of their respective countries.
10
GDP is irrelevant if the government is putting up the money. Australia’s GDP is about $1.23 trillion but the relevant figure is government revenue which was about $330 billion (2010/2011). As expenditure was about $350 billion that $10 billion is just a bit more borrowed money being wasted.
Wasted because the European experience is that renewables are not viable energy sources in an industrialised society. Germany which is the leading industrial nation in Europe is likely to replace some of its nuclear generated energy (post Fukushima) with coal fired electricity. At present about 25% of its electricity is produced from coal fired plants.
Further if any of the present forms of renewable energy had any market viability there would be no need for the government to fund further demonstrably failed and/or inadequate energy alternatives like wind and solar. Both these old energy sources were used in ancient Egypt and of course sailing ships were phased out for the more useful and efficient coal and oil powered ships many years ago.
10
Can’t do numbers can you. Try 0.8% or so
10
Hi Tony
Where have you been was nearly going to launch the SAR chopper. 😉
But back onto CO2 and electricity generation I was reading the other day that there have been 2 studies done one in the Netherlands and one in America on the effect of renewable penetration on the grid and the studies show that once penetration exceeds 10% there is no CO2 saving from using the renewables because the amount of CO2 emitted by the backup generation exceeds the amount of CO2 saved by the renewables.
Do you know of any such study done or being done in Australia and how hard would it be to do any such study.
Cheers
10
Had major computer problems, Hard drive, power supply CPU, the whole deal. Happened in an instant and then cooked over the next few minutes.
Necessitated a new Tower.
Luckily i recovered what was on the Hard drive, slowly, and methodically.
Had to rebuild the programmes from scratch for the new Tower HD, then get a SATA external HD caddy and recover the data files etc.
I methodically back up, and do maintenance every morning, as well as in depth maintenance once a month, but when it all goes like this, that comes to nought.
Over temp in the Power supply started it, and before the Hard Drive could recover in a safe mode, it turned EVERY file to read only and hidden, so it took some recovery from that HD.
Luckily, all my music, around 18 to 23 Gig is on a separate HD in an older IDE caddy, so I didn’t lose any of that.
Then, a week after that my 19 inch LCD BenQ monitor died as well, so I’ve been a busy little Vegemite.
Took me two weeks, but 10 days of that was waiting for the Tower, you know pensioner and all that.
Life is good!
Tony.
10
That was a pretty flawed study that took as its premise coal would be used as backup.
Once we have enough renewable energy sources then by connecting them with a ultra high DC grid these renewable generators will back each other up.
In SA some huge windfarms will now get off the ground, an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars!
10
Wow, Maxine, an “ultra high DC grid”.
Can’t wait for that.
Then new substations, plus new wiring in every town and city, then converting every house with an Inverter, all State Government responsibilities, or maybe converting every household electrical product, you Maxine, you pick which one.
Tens of Billions upon tens of Billions of dollars, and decades of work, if at all.
Renewable Generators each backing up the other.
What the!
And some huge wind farms getting off the ground for hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely you mean Billions of dollars here, and again, decades before all of them will be on line actually delivering their power for, on average 8 hours a day at best.
Maxine, you mentioned earlier that I have nothing but anecdotes.
I see this thought bubble with a pot and a kettle.
Tony.
10
Tony maybe Maxine is talking about this
10
Operating records show windy or calm periods are seasonal, frequently country wide.
10
Hey Maxine don’t suppose you have got some links to show how this wondrous high DC might work.Sort of how you might reduce the 66Kv to something that might run in your house.
10
Damn funny stuff.. 🙂
Most people will miss you were just being ironic/sarcastic..
The scary thing is..there are people out there that dont care the whole thing was passed without any any test of the “will of the people”.
Which is not democracy..
Or
That Labour got into power by lying to the people about this exact tax..
Which is not democracy..
And there are others that dont care that the economic modelling is hidden..
Smugness on
Notice the cricket noises about the hidden modelling from the CAGW supports..how consistent..:)
smugness off
10
For Dog’s sake! The ETS has been a platform of both parties since 2007! Dozens of studies. Gillard was elected PM promising a carbon price mechanism which we now have!
10
Go! Go! Go! Labor Party! Keep hiking those coal prices through taxes. The rest of the developed world is starting to wake up that not only CO2 unsustainable and political suicide, in the present economy, coal prices are going through the roof. Solar and wind won’t cut it when energy starved voters turn on their political leaders. Natural gas will be king in the years to come. Power stations will convert. Cars powered by natural gas will be produced by the major automakers. And the coal market will diminish. And the worst part…the natural gas is available locally. The Chinese coal market will continue robustly for a while, but locally produced natural gas will decimate the Australian coal market. The party is winding down. Watch the CO2 tax really bite hard and viciously then.
10
[…] Labor Party Big Economics Idea: Pay $10 billion to *lose* $20 billion more! – This is about what it adds up too: If the carbon tax costs us, say, $10 billion a year (anyone have a better number?) we not only have to pay that, but we might lose another $20 billion a year as well. (Jo Nova) […]
10
Catamon:
Let me revise your typo:
There, all better now.
After all, since when should a government seek a mandate from the people before passing legislation of this maginitude? It’s so much easier to just shove the piece of crap down the peasants throats first eh! Just like china eh!
The ALP should forever be treated with the same extreme lack of respect and decency it has just shown the Australian people. May it’s demise be as rapid and catastrophic as it should be permanent.
REGIME CHANGE NOW
10
Madjack, you are breaking the your rules and reading what i post!!
The government won the election. They have a mandate to put legislation before the parliament. It got through the parliament that the people voted for. Suck it up Princess and stop whinging.
At least now this is done and dusted they can move on to other important legislation like MRRT and NDIS.
And really Madjack, if you got your regime change, what exactly would you want it changed to become?? Some kind of recall election every 3 months anarchy fest?? Government by obnoxious gits in the public galleries?? Policy by who yells the loudest foulest insult??
We may have a minority Govt, and you obviously disagree strongly with at least one of its legislated policies, but over all its been working, as a government, pretty well.
10
REGIME CHANGE NOW
(by election or otherwise)
10
catamon @ #43.1
For someone who doesn’t like obnoxious gits you seem to have a lot to say that is loud and foul, i.e.,
10
In what way exactly was that comment you quoted of mine foul??
10
An explanation of who will pay the “tax”
http://www.sayyesaustralia.org.au/videos/video/?videoid=1019
10
I’ve been thinking today how glad I am that I didn’t accept my mother’s counsel when I was a young person looking for a career
‘go for the public service and you’ll always have a job’
well I have worked for the public service for a short time but not for a long time
and the people I know who still go for the labor govt or greens are those who have sucked at the public teat all their lives
how glad I am that I’m not one of those
10
The fact is this government nor any of its economic lackies know what the carbon TAX will do to the economy of Australia. In 2009 a report prepared for the then NSW ALP government estimated that GDP would shrink by $2trillion by 2050; that was in 2007 $:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ets-to-shrink-regional-growth/story-e6frg6nf-1225691476399
More recent treasury estimates are that GDP will shrink by only $900 billion by 2050 although treasury did agree with the ealier figure of $2 trillion:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-lashes-carbon-critics-20111020-1madf.html#ixzz1bLz6RanE
None of these GDP estimates calculate lifestyle effects especially since Australia is now and will become even more a 2-speed economy with a dominant export orientated sector based on energy, and a declining internal sector, which through green policy, is energy poor. In this way GDP could be maintained through exports while the lights literally go out at home.
10
Which country, in its right mind, willingly shrinks its own GDP and then celebrates about it as some kind of moral victory? Pyrrhus committing Seppuku.
10
For those who are unaware, Pyrrhus’ main weakness as a military and political leader was an inability to keep enough money in the treasury to maintain his armies. Pretty apt for Julia and Swan, I reckon. And yes I do believe they are committing ritual suicide for themselves and probably the party the claim to represent.
10
Hi Jo
Slightly O/T but.
While doing some research on the IPCC I came across a study by PK Hope,used as a reference in AR4, on rainfall reduction in southwest Western Australia.This study stated there had been a step drop in rainfall since 1970 but a cursory check of some 10 long history rainfall records for the southwest did not seem to show this.
If you are interested in this please feel free to email me.
Cheers
—-REPLY: I have emailed. Ta! — JN
10
Offtopic but this is another extraordinary thing with the climategate scientist Dr. Michael Mann’s inquiry and reversal of wrongdoing. If you follow the links from the New York Times article “Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry” which says “An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.” you’ll end up with a dead link.
Ditto with another so called inquiry from this article which says “Two inquiries in Britain have largely exonerated the scientists there who were caught up in Climategate, though one report did offer minor criticism of statistical techniques.”. You reach a dead link which says “Sorry, but the page you requested does not exist”. This whole inquiry and it’s finding is a crude joke.
10
What a shame Kim Jong Ill II (Adam Smith) can’t be here to join the gloating of the ignorami to celebrate teh passing of the carbon tax he didn’t think was a tax?
10
Are you sure he’s not Madjack?? Really Really sure??
10
Time to move on guys and girls its now law. The world’s respected scientists have been heard by the Australian people and its government – the howling protests of the paid mouthpieces ignored. Thankfully democracy beats idiocracy.
10
groupie @ #50
You’re right groupie; democracy does beat idiocracy; so why did you vote for idiocracy?
10
U are an idiot!
Just read any of Jo`s previous posts, to prove you wrong.
`The world’s respected scientists have been heard`
Haha you mean that dick Paleontologist Tim Flim-Flam.
He lives on a prime spot of Hawkesbury River, obviously he is not worried about sea level rises!
Do some research Mr Groupie (and not a group think!)
Then come back and say that!
10
My point precisely. You aren’t reading science.
10
dick – phew, there’s few better arguments than that
10
Man made laws can be changed. Natural laws cannot.
It is a fallacy to think that just because due process was followed in passing a law, it is therefor legitimate. A legitimate law does not violate individual rights. This so called law violates individual rights at every turn.
It is interesting to note that even due process was NOT followed in this case making the law even less than not legitimate. It is a law in name only and is nothing but a dictate of a political elite. Such “laws” must be resisted by any and all means necessary. It cannot be allowed to stand
He who is free never submits. He who submits was never free.
10
And URA Loony.
10
Never surrender Lionell. Keep fighting the good fight. Do it for your country.
10
Never submit ! Go on fight to the end and push out blog after blog. Lionell Griffith, the Mohamed Bouazizi of Australia.
10
Hi to:
I’ve got something a little bit involved I’d like to ask each of you. But before I do I’m wondering if you could all be kind / brave enough to post your thoughts on the diversion of resources from growing food to the production of biofuels?
Anybody game to play?
.
PS: Maxine
?????????
10
[diversion of resources from growing food to the production of biofuels?]
Not particularly impressed by it in general. Its a bit like the old European colonies in Africa being shunted into growing cash crops at the expense of local food supply. Certainly the way its being done with oil palms in some places isn’t what i would call sustainable. If these kind of projects are what people are buying into for overseas carbon credits under our ETS then i’d think they need to be properly assessed and their affect on food security may be one of several useful criteria that could be applied to such. Like any system it will evolve. However, if anyone thinks that some investment in poor quality carbon offset projects invalidates the whole concept of an ETS, then my suggestion is that they grow up and not be so puerile and obtuse as to reject a good and useful concept because it falls short of being a perfect concept.
10
The biofuels in use today (which divert food resources) seem unlikely to be a net positive (if the goal is minimising suffering). 2nd gen biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol might help address the energy crisis whilst not making the food crisis worse at the same time.
10
Bad idea. As is digging up fertile land to get Coal or Coal Seam Gas. No argument really.
10
So MV, you’ve got a bunch of responses, and have been banging on about this for months, what was your point?
10
Juvenile ad hominems that miss by a mile aside..but at least..you sort of tried.. 🙂
I love how not only is the “science”..of CAGW CO2 postmodern..but even the words outside of the “science” of CAGW.
Democracy now means in our post modern world..no democracy.
Another form of semantic astro turfing my fine and baffled friend..
1/there was no vote for this by the people =no democracy..what part of that simple statement dont you understand.
2/there was a lie to the Australian that there would be no tax =no democracy,,what part of that simple statement dont you understand.
3/The economic modelling is hidden from the people..what part of that simple statement dont you understand.
Now which of the above are you having trouble “denying”. ? 🙂
Hide like the rest of the CAGW posters here from the above..
And yes..some of the worlds scientists were heard by a minority of politicians here..what part of that simple statement dont you understand.
Please stick to what you do know rather than showing us what you dont know. 🙂
10
Postmodernism?!
10
I suspect that Julia is gunning for a high ranking UN job, a bit like her sister-in-arms, Helen did. Judging by the tumultuous and deeply troubling events of today, possibly one of the saddest public displays of Luddite behaviour ever globally witnessed, Julia’s departure to the UNDP won’t be too far away.
10
SMH poll on the carbon TAX; vote here:
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/australias-carbon-tax-20111108-1n4qv.html#poll
10
Thanks for the link Cohenite!
I just went to vote and was blown away!
20,000 votes and 47% each!!
What the? That must be a mistake…
Get-up doesnt have 10,000 voters does it?
The hypocrites are expelling CO2 as they vote on their CO2 produced keyboards.
What a joke these guys are….
God help Australia !
10
It is the SMH after all!
10
So, the media inquiry won`t be after them then…
10
The SMH has a leftist newspaper with a leftist readership. A 50-50 there means an unpopular landslide elsewhere (unless it’s an ABC poll).
10
Is there no option for the voters to force a referendum on legislation that important in Australia??
10
No.
10
Yes, wait 2 more years
10
Abbott’s absence today tells you everything you need to know about what the Liberals will, or should I say won’t do, at the next election. Those die-hard Liberal supports who still believe in the left-right politics illusion need to get a reality check before the next election. Let me state this as clearly as possible:
There is no discernible policy difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. They might be tied with a different bow but the contents of boxes are the same.
10
What the Frig???
`There is no discernible policy difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party.`
How about…..
ALP = CARBON TAX
LIBS/NATS = NO CARBON TAX.
There!! That`s better.
10
BA, you probably meant:
ALP = ETS
Libs/Nats = Direct Inaction.
10
Your political theology is blinding you to the stated fact that Abbots Liberal government is advocating a carbon tax as well. Where do you think his government is going to get the money to enact his carbon reduction scheme? State Lotto?
Here’s couple of names for you. Malcolm Turnbull. Joe Hockey. The Macquarie Bank and Goldman Sachs Connection. Political banksters who want to see their relatives and buddies launder fiat currency through the carbon derivative markets by way of high volume trading.
The Black Adder the stooges are relying on your dogmatic ignorance to gorge themselves at the public trough. If you want to believe the lie that the left and the right are different, then be content as the slave you are.
10
Whilst recognising that Turnbull and Hockey are likely to be negative players in the Coalition’s promise to repeal the carbon tax and there are a few others, it is obvious that there is also a solid core of skeptics in the National and Liberal parties. That core does not exist in the ALP so that is the big difference between the Coalition and the ALP. There is little doubt that Abbott is solidly in the skeptic camp but is most likely restricted by the political considerations within his own party and the power of the media, which in the main is supportive of ACC.
Whether or not the Coalition can repeal this legislation depends on the size of its majority should it win the next election and Abbott’s ability to move the Liberal party away from its present ACC policy which would be as futile as the ALP carbon tax, to “save” us all from the effects of using the most useful and effective power source available to humans, fossil fuels.
10
political consideration = desire to enslave us through the tax burden
I’m talking about policy difference. Is there any real policy difference? No.
Are you suggesting that there are members of parliament actually believe in the AGW scam? That’s naive. You’ve drunk the “we’re different from the other guys” kool aid.
10
If Abbott is such a skeptic, and (as everyone on this site claims) is backed by the majority of the Aust voters, then why doesn’t he just come out and say it!
10
The both have a 5% CO2 reduction policy
10
According to the BBC, it’s a law on pollution …
“Australia’s Senate has approved a controversial law on pollution, after years of bitter political wrangling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15632160
Spin baby, spin.
Pointman
10
The usual from dopey green Labor
10
Why is it that the bloggers on this site constantly cry ad hominem at the slightest indirect comment but constantly call all those they disagree with losers, dopey, idoits, naive, stupid, jokes, obnoxious gits etc . Could the hypocrisy be because you have no valid arguments? Oh of course not, because there are all those published papers to support your position…
10
I called them dopey green Labor because this outcome was entirely predictable as is so much of their so called ‘green’ policy initiatives. Creating carbon credits by changing light globes and shower heads, as well as putting the world’s food in our petrol tanks and knocking over Asian rainforest for palm oil diesel, also fit the dopey bill perfectly. Dopey is as dopey does.
10
Dopey is as dopey does. Well that’s solid.
10
Look… we are talking about a Labor government… actually a Gillard Green/Labor government… stupid and ignorant.
What do you expect from a Prime Minister that is an unforgivable liar?
What do you expect from a government that is a born economy wrecker?
What do you expect from a Labor government that is anti the Australian way, that encourages nannyism, intimidation, censorship and suppression over and above freedom of expression, debate and healthy criticism… basic democratic principles?
But I say this… don’t worry, be happy. I say this because we will all get the opportunity – freedom of expression and choice at the next election… something we were denied over the carbon tax.
My vote is already in… to kick out these politicians who have treated us voters with such contempt and arrogance.
Yes, they are celebrating today because they think they have won a battle. Fortunately, it is always the voters who have the opportunity to actually win the war.
Paul Keating learnt this lesson when he was booted out of office at the 1996 general election. Julia Gillard will learn a similar lesson too.
10
Actually, or economy is doing so well it is the second best performing economy in the world! Australians are right up there in the list of countries where people are well off. If Europe precipitates a new Long (“Great”) Depression the govt is ready to ensure any job losses are absolutely minimal.
Not only that, PM Gillard DID promise to introduce a Carbon Price mechanism. We now have that.
So relax and be happy! Don’t be a sour, silly loser!
10
Take away the mining industry and what have we got;
an economy with about as much innovation and vitality as Europes.
Our politicians can strut the world stage because of luck.
It will run out.
ps. Don’t forget the $300 billion labor borrowed to fund their Green Buy-off.
Do they intend paying it back?
10
KK (AKA MFJ),
It has already started
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_might_actually_have_to_build_stuff_not_just_dig_it/
10
Well nobody can possibly doubt anything written on a Herald Sun Blog can they! For example it clearly has more credibility than NASA. Afterall they did fake the moon landing.
10
Hi Crakar24
We do need to start building things.
MFJ is resting peacefully. Ha ha .
10
ps
Forgot to mention how much I like Andrew Bs blogg.
He still whips the SkepticalScience crowd into a foaming Green frenzy – great.
10
What $300Bn Green buyoff?
10
I hear more sense on 2 and 1/2 men; you’re an idiot.
10
That about sums it up Cohenite it is a game to them, by calling us losers infers they are winners, what exactly they think they have won remains a mystery still.
10
So ‘idiot’ is a better line of argument than ‘loser’ ?
10
Maxine said:
How silly of us not to realise that she and Swan were here telling us that they would be soon introducing a carbon tax. With Maxine’s assistance, one can see it now:
From above:
Thanks for setting us straight on the meaning of that. English is such a difficult language. Every thought of becoming a Labor PM, Max?
10
China threatening to blackmail the World over HFC-23 production: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/08/chinas-climate-cah-blackmail/
‘China has responded to efforts to ban the trading of widely discredited HFC-23 offsets by threatening to release huge amounts of the potent industrial chemical into the atmosphere unless other nations pay what amounts to a climate ransom.’
10
It always shocks me when someone lies as brazenly and openly as Gillard did. I choose not to spend time with amoral people so it always catches me off guard. Any student of history will see that amoral people often rise to high levels of political power so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by her. Thanks goodness she doesn’t have kids. For all you gloating lemmings, my fondest wish is that some day each of you have to look in the mirror and ask “what have I done?”.
Right now I am so thankful I live in a country with a relatively sane, mostly conservative government. My sympathies go out to the people of Australia that will be significantly harmed by this draconian legislation. Please take your country back.
10
Your homework for tonight:
Define lie:….
Define broken promise….
Discuss the difference
10
This is like a case study in the difference between a conservative and a liberal.
To me they are the same. In fact I’m not even sure what your point is. My kids would be grounded whether they “lied” or “broke a promise”.
I assume you think there is some dramatic difference between the two which justifies the deceiver. Standard liberal moral relativism. In your mind right and wrong are moving targets depending on the people involved and the objective of the lie. This is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.
10
The difference is that lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of a known truth. A broken promise is the reversal of a previous agreement due to of unforeseen circumstances. If a promise was made with the knowledge that it would be later broken, then it constitutes a lie.
Eg would you ground your son if he promised to clean his room, but didn’t because he broke his leg at school?
If you believe it takes being a liberal to understand that, then you are equating conservatism with a lack of intelligence, something I would never claim.
10
Not a Groupie said:
Please tell us to what in Gillard’s renege is analogous to a broken leg? What prevented her from keeping her word?
10
Sean McHugh, I think you miss the point. Yes Gillard broke a promise, but that still doesn’t make what she did a lie.
10
[snip “price/tax” point is inane — Even Gillard admits it’s a Tax — JN]
10
Reply to Not a Groupie
Re: Gillard (and Swan) swearing, during the election, that there would be no carbon tax.
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Your argument, for getting Julia off the charge of dishonesty, was a that there was a genuine inability for her to keep her promise and that she didn’t reverse it later just because it suited her. You used the analogy of an unforeseen broken leg. I asked you, and am still asking you, what prevented Julia form keeping her promise? Keep in mind that, to keep her promise, she didn’t need to do anything at all. Her promise wasn’t to DO something difficult, it was to NOT DO that something. Analogously that can be fulfilled with a broken leg and even a broken neck.
Please explain to us why she had to do it.
10
Look the issue of whether people agree or disagree with what Gillard did ought to be irrelevant to this issue. The comments being made about the issue are factually incorrect. ‘Have to’ has nothing to do with it, premeditation is the issue. John Howard didn’t have to introduce the GST, does that make his original promise not to introduce it a lie?
Had either Howard or Gillard made their promises in the knowledge that they would break it, then they lied. My point is that nobody is claiming that this is the case. In both cases people are claiming that a broken promise is a lie. I am just stating the obvious fact that there is a difference. When the facts changed they changed their minds, and broke a promise. In neither case is this a lie.
10
Not a groupie said:
I would also call it a lie if a solemn promise was made knowing the promise didn’t mean much – and clearly it didn’t.
The thought of the promise not being was ridiculed, along with the Coalition, for even suggesting it. All Gillard had to do to keep her promise was not do anything. Clearly there was a solemn promise made with no real commitment. After that she tried to get out of it with blatant dishonesty (and stupidity). She actually forfeited your defense against the charge of lying, when, instead of saying she meant what she said but changed her mind, she denied that such a promise was made and broken. With her irritating smirk she told the reporter that he was just playing with semantics:
From The Punch:
Where is that ‘semantics’ video clip? It needs to be saved and broadcast all over the Net at the next election.
…
No matter how you try to defend her and no matter what labels one chooses, Gillard’s word has been shown to mean nothing. She can’t be trusted.
10
It was a last ditch desperate attempt to get over the line. It was as best a promise made that plausibly she may not have to keep, but when faced with losing government, the truth was the casualty. It was a known, deliberate deception to retain power. It may not be a technical lie, but it was dishonest, misleading and deceptive. Saying it wasn’t a lie is pure semantics.
10
The chilling image.
She was pointing at all of us, saying… I’m gonna GET YOU.
10