From the Liberal Party site June 29th 2012 the details we hope to see unfold. The thought makes the arrival of The-Tax-On-Everything this Sunday easier to bear… savour the anticipation, and hope we don’t have to wait too long.
Abbott vows he will dissolve the Parliament if the voters choose “No Carbon Tax” (again) and the Labor party denies them their choice. Could they? Would they? Is it possible the Labor Party might knock back the legislation to remove That Tax?
The Coalitions Plan to Abolish the Carbon Tax
As soon as an election is called, the Coalition will take immediate and concrete steps to repeal the Carbon Tax.
Repealing the Carbon Tax will ease cost of living pressures on families, help small business and restore confidence to the economy.
On the day the election is called, I will write to the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to make it clear that, if elected, the first priority of a Coalition Government will be the repeal of the Carbon Tax.
Within the spirit of the Caretaker conventions, I will also formally request the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to desist from making any further determinations in relation to grants, funds or financing.
If elected, the Coalition will take immediate steps to implement our plan to abolish the Carbon Tax.
On day one, I will instruct the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to draft legislation that repeals the Carbon Tax and to have the legislation ready within one month.
On day one, the Finance Minister will notify the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it should suspend its operations and instruct the Department of Finance to prepare legislation to permanently shut-down the Corporation.
On day one, the Environment Minister will instruct the Department to commence the implementation of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan on climate change and carbon emissions. Within the first month, the Cabinet will approve legislation to repeal the Carbon Tax.
On the first sitting day of Parliament under a Coalition Government, I will introduce legislation to repeal the Carbon Tax. The first piece of legislation to be debated in the Parliament will be the repeal of the Carbon Tax. As soon as the Carbon Tax is repealed, the Environment Minister will introduce legislation to enact the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan on climate change and carbon emissions.
Within the first sitting fortnight of Parliament, the Finance Minister will introduce legislation to shut-down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I expect that the Parliament will respect the mandate of the people and repeal the Carbon Tax.
To oppose the mandate of a government elected on a platform of abolishing the Carbon Tax would be as reprehensible as the Gillard Government’s action to introduce a Carbon Tax without a mandate from the people.
If Labor and the Greens combine to block the express will of the Australian people, a Coalition Government would seek dissolution of both Houses of Parliament. We would then introduce the legislation to abolish the Carbon Tax at a subsequent Joint Sitting of the Parliament.
Unlike the Prime Minister, I mean what I say: there will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead.
Click here to download a copy of the Coalition Plan to Abolish the CarbonTax.
h/t Des Moore
PS: Vote in the poll on Today Tonight if it is still going. “Should Australia keep the carbon tax or scrap it?” 95% say scrap it.
[To find the poll look for “Tonights Poll” bottom left below Friday June 29th.] (Keep it (40) 5%| Scrap it (748) 95%| Not sure (3) 0%)
h/t Donna
This is all very well, but the Coalition policy retains the assumption that human CO2 emissions will cause dangerous climate change. We all know very few in the Coalition actually believe that, but while ever they have a CO2 emission reduction strategy they are implying that they do.
What I would love the Coalition to propose is that within a month of coming to power, they should establish a Royal Commission into Climate Change specifically to determine:
1. If the temperature records as used, including those which have been adjusted and homogenised by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO to advise the government on climate change are of a standard which is able to be audited by an independent third party and whether they have been audited by an independent third party.
2. If there is any empirical evidence which proves a direct link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and a greater than 1.2C increase in global average temperatures from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
3. Whether the IPCC Climate Models which are relied upon by the BOM and the CSIRO and used in advice to the Government and policy making take account of all known climate drivers and all known CO2 negative feedback mechanisms. If not, what reasonable assumptions can be made about the accuracy of those models?
4. If any advisers to the Government on matters related to Climate Change had an undeclared conflict of interest?
I am sure the terms of reference could be tidied up somewhat, but that’s the best I can do at 3am!
I would also like the Coalition to commit to review all grants made by the Department of Climate Change and the Australian Research Institute on Climate Change related matters.
10
The Royal Commission into the “Scientific Accuracy” of Man made global Warming theory would be a very important way of defusing the issue once and for all.
It is necessary to publicly expose what has happened, but we all know that whatever the result there would be clouds of media disinformation to distort the public understanding of this vexed idea.
10
The idea that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done is a very old idea. The division in society is healed by all factions seeing a fair process (that they accepted at the outset) being executed transparently.
No closed court sessions, no secret tribunals, no suppressed evidence. The process must be open.
As I said about 8 months ago, it is not enough to get rid of the carbon tax, we must fix the defects in the political system that allowed it to happen or else we will face similar boondoggles in the future.
A Royal Commission is an obvious next step and the conclusions taken from it can be the basis for broader reforms of government, in particular the establishment of data standards for gauging the reality of any problem the government wants to make rulings about.
10
My thoughts exactly, well said.
00
It is great that Abbot is opposing the ‘carbon tax’ – however I agree with the suspicion of Jaymez. The coalition may abolish the ‘carbon tax’ – but accelerate the introduction of an ETS or offer some other appeasement to the carbon cult. This would have the same political effect as “no-carbon-tax-under-the-government-I-lead” did for Julia – he could then be easily typecast as a slippery, weasel-wording opportunist who misused the trust of the electorate to achieve his own personal ambitions.
I think Jaymez’s suggestions would be a very wise path for the coalition to take..
10
I actually believe Tony Abbott’s earlier position, i.e. “Climate change is crap”, will come to the fore sooner rather than later. Right now he has a lot of dancing to do. I don’t believe they will go down the ETS route, but will ‘review’ the whole issue. They’d be stupid not to. In the meantime, they’ll be hoping the whole issue will simply go away. The Greens, no doubt, will engage in egregious and hysterical ‘hyper-bowl’ ( if you live in Australia, no explanation is needed: everyone else, google Gillard and hyperbole), but it will be too late.
How different it would all be if Kevin had had the cojones to call the DD election he so often threatened. There, but for the grace of God…
00
I can only wish that we had someone in our Parliament (or what passes for the voice of the people) with the spine to articulate something on these lines for us in the UK. I was recently in Exeter (Devon) and had to drive past the Meteorological Office, home to £41 billion’s worth of computer power, paid for by me, whose forecast for the three months of our ‘spring’ was so risable as to to defy belief…and yet they still claim to be able to tell us what the climate will be in 100 years time!
Jo: keep up the good work. You and your correspondents represent the voice of sanity and will surely, eventually prevail
Pax vobiscum, Tony (somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan)
10
A good read about the useless UK Met Office……..
It has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget. So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html
00
Tony –
Not wishing to rain on your parade as it were because I’m entirely onside, but the Met Office super-computer cost about £35 MILLION, not £41 BILLION.
Having said that,it looks pretty good that first Canada and now(hopefully in the foreseeable future) Australia, may take the lead in restoring sanity to the Commonwealth.
The UK seems to have boxed itself into a corner by being one of the instigators/perpetraters of the hoax/fraud/pseudo science, so we must accept a lesser credit in repairing the damage!
00
A government that willingly gives up tax revenue. With the best will in the world to all concerned, I’ll believe it when I see it.
00
The LNP still intend to keep all of the other mad green schemes such as the RET which together cost more to the economy than the CO2 tax. All they will be doing is replacing the CO2 tax with their own stupid direct action plan. This plan will still attack the “Derdy Polluders” and will includes provisions to shut some od them down with tax payer funded buy outs. I really see no difference. Where is a political party with some grown ups in charge?
00
My thoughts, exactly.
Guys, we have to focus, not at what politicians say,* but what they don’t say.
He says what he plans to do. He tells us how he plans to do it, and when. But, he does not explain why he plans to do it. He does not explain what the results will be. He does not explain how Australians, in general, will be better for what he is planning.
Hands-up, all those people who think that the timing of this announcement, made on the last working day before the tax kicks in, was just a fortunate accident.
Good tactic to quote the words of the Gizzard of Oz back in her face, but what modes of fire and brimstone does the High Abbot intend call down from the heavens in their place?
Between now, and the next election, we have to analyse the acts of the High Abbot to better understand their wondrousness. Or otherwise, as the case may be.
* Australian politicians, of all persuasions, have raised “being economical with the truth”, to a whole new level of sophistication. It is a new art-form.
00
If the Libs want to be taken seriously, they need to dump the whole AGW scam, in toto, no pussyfooting around with “direct action”, RETs or other concessions to the scammers and noise makers. They have enough in their own ranks, like Dennis Jensen, to bone them up on elementary science, let alone access to any number of independent sources if they have the balls to really enquire.
If they want to be seen as serious players, let’s see some intelligence, for once.
00
Australia’s leading media climate zombie celebrates the implementation of the carbon dioxide tax as “a new environmental dawn”. The Pyongyang Times couldn’t have put it better. And you wonder why Fairfax is going broke.
00
Oh, Good Grief.
From his picture, I would wager that Ben Cubby was barely walking in 1967. He is regurgitating is what he has read in environmental history books, probably authored under the auspices of the WWF. It is certainly not first-hand knowledge.
Acid rain was a problem in Western Europe (pre-reunification). Technology was available to remove the Sulphur Dioxide, but none of the power companies were prepared to pay for its installation because it would make them uncompetitive.
So what the Government of the day did, was to give the power companies a choice. They could either “borrow” the money from the government to install the technology, and pay it back over a fixed period, or they could pay a monthly fine for the quantity of emissions produced, for as long as they produced them. It was no surprise that they all opted for the former.
This is often cited by the Greens as an example of how government intervention can have lasting benefits, but you have to realise that it was actually a free market solution rather than a socialist one.
It was also over a finite time frame. Taxation, like herpes, is forever.
00
Hi RW
Interesting comment.
There is a big difference between SO2 and CO2, the first being a pollutant leading to H2SO4 and therefore a some REAL problems, and the second having no connection with pollution apart from its mythical place in the annals of AGW delusionism .
00
You have a strange view of “free markets”. The government using stolen (taxes are taken by force = stolen) funds to induce actions by third parties. The third parties pay back the stolen funds to the same entity that stole them. The pay back was from the people from whom the wealth was stolen in the first place. Tell me how this is even a market let alone a free market.
When the the force of arms (that is all government is) is involved, it is neither a market nor free. You have removed “free market” from any contact with reality and have inserted your own fantasy in its place.
00
Yesterday I got into a discussion with my doctor about the pipeline-disruption roadworks for Adelaide’s pointless desalination plant. I couldn’t believe that he had never heard of Tim Flannery. On the other hand, he said that the Greens should be **** (rhymes with not).
In the poll mentioned above it’s good that hardly anyone is “not sure”.
00
i’m with Jaymez on this. the whole CAGW scam needs to be refuted.
watch out for your Super Funds. this was running as a News Ticker all day on the Sky Business Channel. note how AAP leaves the CAGW “clean energy” paras til the end of the piece:
29 June: Herald Sun: AAP: Super funds key to infrastructure: ACTU
Mr Oliver also called for the government to help boost fund’s investment in clean energy.
“Many of the fund management industry are unfamiliar with the dynamics of clean tech, preferring instead to focus on more traditional forms of infrastructure assets.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/super-funds-key-to-infrastructure-actu/story-e6frf7kf-1226412062656
00
The HSU has nothing on their Union associated Union Super Funds.
The many Green investments made by former union officials now in charge of your Union Super would seem to have lost heaps besides the heavy burden of keeping the “management” in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Fund Directors salaries of near half a million annually are not uncommon.
That the savings of workers depending on this money in retirement can be so callously regarded by Government regulators and Union associates is very discouraging for the future of this country.
You can’t trust anyone’
00
Add to ist of actions suggested by Jaymez
5: An open and balanced debate, to be broadcast and telecast on all Government media outlets.
00
One step at a time. It’s great fun to be a science purist and declare one’s tenets of belief but altogether another to do anything about it. It may not have occurred to the purists that we are talking about politicians who mostly have training in law (who in general rely on “expert evidence” and whose stock in trade is lying) and economics (which is predictively about as inaccurate as the efforts of AGW scientists).
If the carbon tax were removed by Abbott it is a step in the right direction and perhaps would be a harbinger of a more rational reason for dumping it than the present reason proffered by the Coalition.
00
Liberals commit to a policy as dumb as the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax……
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/liberals_commit_to_a_policy_as_dumb_as_the_carbon_tax/
FFS WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY ???????????
LOOKS LIKE WE NEED A NEW POLITICAL PARTY IN AUSTRALIA !
ONE THAT ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIANS !!!!!
CLEARLY THE LIBERAL PARTY IS FULL OF ANTI AUSTRALIAN TRAITORS, JUST LIKE THE ALP (AUSTRALIAN LIARS PARTY ) !!
PS I have emailed this to all the email contacts I could find for them. I suggest that we start an email war to get them to see COMMON SENSE.
00
You have my support there Angry.
00
The New Party canard. And what makes you think it would be (in the highly unlikely event of it ever being successful) any different to the others?
Pick one of the two major parties and work turn it around. Either will do. Labor has currently allied itself in a death grip with the Greens, but many of the old time Labor people are unhappy with this. Work with them. Many of the Liberals are very sceptical of AGW (probably including Abbott himself). Work with them.
Yeh, I know it’s more fun to be a big fish in a small pond, but that’s not how things get done.
00
The entire edifice of the Political Party concept must be considered suspect.
What was it that fellow once said… the greatest of committees is inferior to the least of individuals?
We need more independent members in Parliament. I reckon the career politician mentality, plus the pressure to conform to the party, are what leads to so many laws being created and so many of those laws being unsavoury to the masses. The Party is what takes an individual and molds them into the shape the Party’s hidden sponsors desire.
How else do we end up with a situation where the ALP and NLP are almost identical?
Some say it’s lobbying by big corporations. I say, well they can lobby all they like but parliament doesn’t have to do their bidding. And let’s stop calling bald faced bribery by the euphemisms of “political party donations” and “lobbying”. We’ve seen where that eventually leads in the example of Washington, and you do not want to go there.
00
I’ve thought the same thing for over forty years. The root cause is public apathy. Please follow my rationale. Parliament was conceived with the concept that one individual could represent a constituency and represent their wishes in parliament. Today we have technology available that would allow every individual to vote on issues once a month. While this eliminates parties or even parliament itself, it still requires someone to determine what the issues are, and to establish the costs and benefits of each issue. This necessarily means that every individual would need to devote perhaps 20 or 30 hours a month to read the pros and cons of each argument. It also of necessity means that those who research each topic and present it for the populace need be strictly neutral. The facts, mam, only the facts. The result could be an ideal democracy. However, too many voters today are far more interested in the footy or the bread and circuses provided by Canberra that they don’t even know what the issues are. When they get to the ballot box, the decision is made on how big Tony’s ears are or how pointed Julia’s nose is. The ideal democracy could never work with this sort of ennui.
00
Excellent, but Abbott is still committing to hang onto the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which is almost as bad. I’m sure he can be persuaded to drop this as well, but it will need some work on our part and it is better if it is done before an election. I sent an email (below). Typed letters are probably better (I’ve been told the staff view hand-written letters as being from cranks!)
Tim Andrews from taxpayers.org.au is organising opposition to the RET.
00
Wonderful. My nomination for comment of the year.
00
I note you did not make explicit the category that it was nominated in.
00
I Agree with both.
00
“The global warming scare is effectively over.”
Yep its got harder and harder for Hansen and Jones etal to adjust trends upward without getting caught again, and again.
They have effectively run out of adjustments !!
00
Good Statement from Mr Abbott,
I’m sure the commies will continue to try and make it sound like it can never happen, I really can’t see any government contemplating for a second to lie like JuLiar did after seeing the catastrophic effect on what is left of the ALP. If any government pulled that stunt on the same topic well, I shudder to think of the consequences.
I would like to see the dissolution of the Department of Climate Change and the ABC, but I’ll settle for this.
Wrt the Direct action plan – the good thing about that one is that it has positive environmental effects regardless of the climate change scare – unlike the current carbon tax which is an attempt at a command economy.
I guess the real question I have here is how utterly stupid and contemptible is this current JuLiar/Thomson/Slipper mob are of the australian people that they continue to waste money implementing a system which is definitely going to be repealed. It’s a disgustingly contemptible waste of our money.
00
Climate change is but a part of the chain, we will still have all the other problems such as housing,health,education and any area which sustains human life,
The real war is AGENDA 21 , LA21, Sustainable Development, are the Liberals going to revoke this program.
Many Australians are now well informed and seek political parties who will take a real stand for Australia and its citizens.
00
The Liberals will if enough Australians get well informed and push them; they are typical politicians. At least they are not stealth Marxists like Gillard and the Labor Left who will ride their party into political oblivion rather than back off their agenda.
00
Actually, the Coalition has a climate change policy based on handing out billions of dollars worth of money to polluters to encourage them to reduce their carbon pollution. You can read it on their webpage here:
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx
Or are you accusing the Coalition of lying?
00
I accuse ALL politicians of lying. Or are you naive enough to believe politicians don’t lie?
Sheeesh, yet another GetUp type wannabe world saver.
So many gullible morons; so little time. sigh!
00
At least Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has the COMMON SENSE to abolish this COMMUNIST SUSTAINABILTY DECLARATION when selling your home……..
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/central/brisbane-real-estate-industry-celebrate-scrapping-of-sustainability-declarations-as-triumph-over-red-tape/story-fn8zbrmq-1226412368605
00
Thanks for this Post Jo.
The action plan is direct on the carbon tax removal and if you look at the Direct action plan, it is about a lot of things ignoring carbon dioxide plans alone. It is 1 billion a year on many projects that may have worth alone.
Carbon dioxide in soils as an example, probably worth trialling. Tree planting, building supplies and alternatives to old growth timbers.
Water and hydrology aspects, the MDB issues are not going to go away and would find their way into this area.
Building new power stations more ecology friendly.
Carbon sequestration only projects would die a natural death I’m afraid.
It really is a grab bag.
ON notice of intent its a bit of a political risk, but if a double d has to happen to remove this tax then that is just the way of it and will make voters think about senate selections, something I’m sorry to say none of us really think about.
00
I think that it is absolutely CRITICAL to determine the position on the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD, of ANY politician that presents themselves for election.
If you have any inkling that they believe in this GREEN COMMUNISM………
DON’T VOTE FOR THEM!
00
I too used to get angry.
I am pointing out the headline $10 billion dollar figure is one billion per annum (yes I know it’s still a thousand million BASc Maths (econometric stat modelling was one of my majors and Finance former Bank Manager high risk).
But Australia as a nation can have ecology and business both sustainable, this is not a dramatic budget figure for some serious issues. I was a former rural bank manager and worked ag for about 6 years got to meet Industry heavy hitters and after mining we should be a frikken food bowl for S.E Asia and the sub continent, that is our other fit.
Using the term critical means you read my stuff, good on you. But the Direct Action Plan is part of the evolution of this issue. This crisis and a crisis it is has been twenty years in the making and I am a relative newcomer only doing ten of it. I personally have no issue with Australian R&D but monitored.
We have ag and ecology issues, so the direct action plan can morph. In five years time people will be remembered as cretins, frauds and charlatans on this issue, it has already destroyed many people and will take many down yet. It’s killed one Prime Ministership and destroyed another just waiting for the curtain to close.
So we have to get the senate vote right and as far as I’m concerned anyone of any party who lies about global warming fraud can fall.
Leave party politics out and go the man or woman on this issue and the refugee issue. Both are very bad national outcomes at this point in time.
00
why u need to protect your Super and why the renewable target needs to be removed from the energy companies, yet another CAGW thing which has already been responsible for our rising electricity prices:
29 June: DailyEnergyDump: Abound Solar to suspend operations, will seek bankruptcy
The Energy Department has provided almost $35 billion to renewable-energy companies
Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee, will suspend operations and file for bankruptcy because its panels were too expensive to compete, say Christopher Martin and Jim Snyder of Bloomberg.
“Abound borrowed about $70 million against the guarantee, the Loveland, Colorado-based company said today in a statement. It plans to file for bankruptcy protection in Wilmington, Delaware, next week.
“The failure will follow that of Solyndra LLC, which shut down in August after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the same U.S. Energy Department program…
http://dailyenergydump.com/2012/06/29/abound-solar-to-suspend-operations-will-seek-bankruptcy/
00
So the Liberals will kill the carbon tax? Great, but is anyone asking what more junk the Liberals will load the RBA, hence the banking system under its protection, with in lieu of carbon credit?
MBS? CMBS? ‘AAA'(nudge, nudge, wink, wink) bank bills? Howard & Costello (& Abbott) were particularly good at that, so don’t think there isn’t a precedent. The difference between Liberal & Labor is that the Libs are subtle enough to make the marks themselves think they are getting rich – doing essentially nothing – by flipping real estate or stock jobbing. Until of course, the bubble bursts, a la ’07-’08.
What nobody gets, is that junk is junk. Carbon credit is not the world’s greatest ever scam & there will be no “ease cost of living pressures on families, help small business and restore confidence to the economy.”
We melt you with acid rain… Keep you poor for economic gain… Convince you your biggest threat, is drugs & terrorists… They don’t even have to be real… Find a face, make up a crime… Run sensational headlines… Works every time! Jello Biafra, 1991
00
You often speak of co-option in academia Jo, so here’s an article you may find interesting
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/globalists-australian-nexus.html
I won’t vouch for the accuracy of it, but it is fair enough to say that these are the people with their fingers on the levers of credit. Don’t think for a minute that the Liberal Party doesn’t take heed of them.
00
I hope that whoever owns our WATERMELON government doesn’t OWN the other side as well.One lives in hope of an honest intelligent government,I am still waiting at 61
00
Sorry, you must choose only one of the three …
00
I dunno, I think you can leave out government.
00
According to your own words, you are either “honest”, “intelligent”, or a “government”. Which is it? Why should we believe you if you give an answer?
Clearly, if you are “government”, we know you are neither honest nor intelligent. If you are “intelligent”, we know you are neither honest nor government. If you are “honest”, we know you are neither intelligent nor government. Hence anything you say will be based upon ignorance or a lie. I can live with that. Can you?
Perhaps you did not mean what you said and didn’t say what you meant. How does this change the conclusion? It doesn’t.
00
apparently It’s all a fragment of my imagination or something
00
Most of you know that along with CO2, I have been mentioning (some might even say harping on about) the equivalent gases as well.
This is something that has rarely rated a mention, although in a roundabout way, Greg Combet has actually been inserting it into the things he says. However, as is the case with the typical ‘talking head’ media people interviewing him (think TJ at ABC), the idea is to let him just press on with the meme, and not ask any ‘curly’ questions, not that he (or the people who prepare his teleprompter anyway) would even guess at what those curly questions might be.
Combet said something the other night when pressed about the increases to the cost of housing, and he mentioned that some Industries associated with housing construction will be receiving up to 95% of their credits for free, and then he added that this would effectively take their ‘price on Carbon’ down around only a dollar per tonne of CO2.
He mentioned that the Glass making industry was one of those who would be receiving for free their 95% of Credits.
So, then, why would that be, eh? (and PS, it went over TJ’s head at Concorde speed and altitude)
It goes right back to that CO2 equivalence I have been mentioning.
Look at this:
Now, as you can see from that, this compound is used in the glass making industry.
Back now to that equivalence chart and the link is below.
Sulphur Hexafluoride is costed at CO2 multiplied by ….. and wait for this ….. 23,900 or $549,700 Per Tonne
Now, only a small part of that SF6 is used in Australia, but wow, can you see why Combet would not want to mention this?
You can see how the cost of glass will rise now, eh!
It’s also used in the Magnesium making industry, so up go the costs of Magnesium products.
It’s also used in electrical circuit componentry, so up go the costs of electronic goods as well.
It’s also used in the Medical profession for procedures as well.
Now, admitted, they may only consume around 10,000 Tonnes worldwide each year, and only a small amount would be used here in Australia, but even so, that’s a pretty big whack.
Keep in mind also, that next year, the amount of credits given away reduces, and the price increases, and that will happen the following year as well, and again on the following year, the first year of the ETS.
What is also not really mentioned out loud is that with the introduction of the ETS, the target is not just those
1000, sorry500, oh, sorry less than 300 filthy disgusting derdy polluders, but EVERY source of every emission.So, while the Government artfully mentions that this is really nothing, as is becoming extremely evident, this is a little more than nothing.
CO2 Equivalence Chart
Note also on that chart, Nitrous Oxide (yes, laughing gas) and its equivalence, and I’ll have a little to say about that also.
Tony.
00
Tony
Not a problem. Buy your glass, magnesium, refrigerants from China. Assuming you have a job…
Cheers,
Speedy
00
The Advertiser (30 June) “Beat the Carbon Tax” liftout “The Key Questions”:
It’s no wonder there are so many people confused about this issue when the MSM publish such inanities. From this, the reporter obviously believes that coal and other forms of carbon float in air. No mention of CO2e and note the common labelling of our manufacturers as ‘polluters’.
The reporter, Catherine Hockley, goes on to explain:
.
00
Great move to “protect the climate”.
Make a gas that one of the best available as a filler for double glazing, too expensive to use.
Unintended consequences? Never heard of them.
00
I wonder who people think will be in the Royal Commission suggested above?
It can’t be scientists who are qualified in the area of climate science, so who is left? It leaves people who are not qualified. Hmmm… that might be a problem.
It is good to see that Tony Abbott has manipulated so many of the people above to do his work for him. I doubt whether any one of the people above has ever read a word based on real science. That means peer reviewed research papers by other scientists, not reviewed by Andrew Bolt. Much easier to get on here and programs like Alan Jones and rave likes lunatics, than actually trying to find anything out for yourselves eh?
Keep up the good work – Tony relies on your ill informed rhetoric to get him elected, because he ain’t got much else to offer…. He must be having a good laugh at people like you all, to see how easy it is to get you into such a lather for his sake.
00
Ellis,
you say here,
You only had to read Comment 19 directly above your own Comment to see how those of us here are in fact trying to find out things for ourselves that are NOT being told to us by the Government.
Had you also taken some time to really have a good look around here, that of itself would further reinforced that we are indeed trying to find out things for ourselves.
Tony.
00
“Ellis”,
The only IDIOT here is yourself!
Try and keep up with current events about the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD!
What about actually READING the corruption of the entire scientific process of the Anti Human UN IPCC aka CLIMATEGATE?
Climategate Anthropogenic Global Warming, history’s biggest scam……
http://www.climategate.com/
CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION !!!!!!!!!!
Get a proper education instead of some LEFTIST DELUSION!
00
Just for YOU “Ellis” !!
World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government….
http://www.infowars.com/world-bank-president-admits-agenda-for-global-government/
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”……..
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
00
Well there is an oxymoron for starters.
Scientists who study the atmosphere are called Atmospheric Physicists. Scientists who study weather are called Meteorologists. Scientists who study computer models are called Mathematicians. So what are these “scientists” of which you speak?
00
Ellis says,
But I don’t think he’s even begun to see the “lather” that will be whipped up in the coming months.
Maybe it’s best for him to slink off as he does below at post 21 to, “…have a life,” while he still can.
00
Oh dear…. I am off to have a life.
I did read Item 19. Enough said. I am sure Andrew Bolt would love this sort of stuff. Ring Alan as well – the self proclaimed “broadcaster” who has admitted he is not a journalist and therefore does not have to stick to the facts.
In the meantime, ask yourselves WHY you are so anxious to propagate the ‘frauds” and “agendas” above. Why do you need to write in capitals?
Why not send in the links to all the peer reviewed research, not the urban myths above. That’s right – you don’t know where they are, because you have never even looked or read them! Tony would be proud of you, because either has he….
Bye!
00
AND THE TROLL “Ellis” SLINKS OFF DUE TO HIS INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE REPLIES POSTED TO HIM.
What is the bet he didn’t even look at the information???
00
Angry, don’t be too hard on Ellis , he is just another uneducated Warmer Groupie who feels safer in a pack.
The real blame goes to people who “know the truth” or suspect the truth but have financial reasons to hide it.
Look at the posts by “Tristan” who frequently posts here. If he is the person I think he is, his job is specifically set up to push the AGW theorem and he would be out of work, or at least compromised, if he “discovered” that he was pushing a lie.
There are V$e$ry Ma$n$y reasons for him not to explore the reality too far; he would become unable to function in his promotional work and be out of step with his peer group.
Choices.
10
Ellis,
what I mentioned in Comment 19 is no fraud or agenda. It’s from the current Australian Legislation.
And hey, even I’m willing to admit this is small change really, and that would actually be the thinking of those from the Left.
So then, let’s see how much of a nothing that this really is.
I mentioned that Sulphur Hexafluoride is only consumed at around 10,000 Tonnes per annum, so, pshaw, that really is nothing eh!
Australia consumes around 4% of that total, which is barely 400 tonnes, and hey, that’s so small an amount, why bother to even mention it.
At the introduction of the ETS, CO2 will be costed at $29 per Tonne.
At the introduction of the ETS, then every emitting entity will be charged for every emission, and no credits will then be given away, so the emitting entity will be costed for the full amount.
So, that’s 400 Tonnes X $29 X the equivalence multiplier, in this case 23,900, and that total comes in at around $280 Million, oh then of course add on the GST, so now the Government’s take is $310 Million.
This is neither fraud nor agenda. This is from the Legislation.
That also is the base price. Then you have the mark up at each stage of the process.
All of that will be paid by consumers, be it glass, be it magnesium, be it medical procedures.
Amounts of this piddling nature of $300 Million mean absolutely nothing these days when Governments talk in Billions, but that is still no small amount, $310 Million.
No agenda here, as we are just doing like you yourself ask of us. Reading the subject material that is out there for all to see. I mean, we have to read it for ourselves. This Government is not going to tell us, are they?
It’s all moot really, because after the next election, it’s all gone.
I know that Legislation means nothing to you in the big scheme of things, but if it wasn’t for sites like this one of Joanne’s, the mainstream media would have just done exactly what the Government told them to do, and real people, who will be paying for all of this, would have been none the wiser.
Tony.
00
This is me getting in first this time.
I’m not sure, and I’m still chasing it up, but again, I may have made an error here.
I based that 400 tonnes of Sulphur Hexafluoride on the Government’s own data, and that said that the total imports of all halocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride were in the region of 10 MegaTonnes of CO2 equivalence, and that SF6 made up only a fraction of this total. As all those gases are ‘lumped’ in together, it’s hard to really calculate how much exactly is that SF6 component of that.
One site I went to quoted Australian holdings at any one time of 500 Tonnes.
However, another Government site mentions that Australia only imports around 50 Tonnes a year, so although I have based the calculations on that total of 400 tonnes, it may in fact be less, but the more I chased it up, the more Government sites I found, and some of them don’t even agree one with the other.
The premise still stand though of a large amount being made from this by Government, all of which will be passed directly down to the consumers.
Tony.
00
And don’t forget all of the SF6 cct breakers in power stations. So every time we have to recharge a breaker after maintenance, ouch. Up goes the cost of electricity again. Will it influence the climate in any way shape or form? Not a bit!
00
We often get political activists like you popping by to have a sneer. You sound like you’re about 17. Enjoy the Abbott Government, although I realise you may have a problem relating to adults. Toodle-oo.
10
Andrew Bolt bla bla bla
Alan jones bla bla bla
Tony Abbot bla bla bla!
00
Sonny, blah blah, blah! See, it is easy being childish…easier for some.
00
Gillard and her political minions have forgotten that they are fronting a democracy and in a democracy voters are not afraid of their government, but the government should be afraid of their voters.
10
The COMMUNIST gillard “government” in Australia has obviously forgotten that THEY WORK FOR US AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !
ELECTION NOW !!!!!!
Where is Bruce Morton Wilson ???
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/06/24/julia-gillards-corrupt-past-raised-in-parliament-by-alp-member-robert-mcclelland/
00
Nice theory.
But we lost true democracy when we quietly accepted the party political system. You no longer vote for a person, you vote for a party, and that party is beholding to its sponsors, and financiers, and not to the public.
10
Rereke, politics is now partisan whether anyone likes it or not. And we might just as well learn to not only live with it but use it to our advantage.
There is a corollary to the, “You get what you vote for,” school of thought. It goes like this, “You get what you support with your money.” And where does the money come from? Ultimately it comes from you and me, the man on the street, that’s where. So find out where your money is going and fight back there as well as at the polling place on Election Day.
The problem with freedom is that it’s paid for not only in blood but with eternal vigilance.
BB
00
I have no experience of Australian politics, but rarely do you see such a firm proclamation of intent. In Britain claims are carefully weighed, so to allow wiggle room at some time in the future.
00
That is because the majority of British politicians are worms … ?
00
Tony Abbott became leader of the opposition after defeating a previous opposition leader who supported an Emissions Trading Scheme.
In other words, Abbott’s entire leadership is based on his opposition to this policy. If he can’t get in a position to keep this promise, either because he loses the next election or the Coalition can’t get the repeal through the Senate, then there is no reason for him to remain leader of the Coalition and he will lose the leadership to one of the moderates that does support keeping the ETS, perhaps in a modified form.
00
Tony’s timing might be good. By the time he comes to power the AGW scam will (most probably) have completely collapsed under the weight of unadjusted raw data and clinical science. Universities will rename their depts from “Climate science” to “Climate studies”. In the climate(hey) of US/Euro governments hunting for the heads of the worst con artists, Tony’s timing might just be perfect.
10
.
Yaaaaay.
On the first day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
One cancelled carbon tax.
On the second day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A $2.55 billion “Emissions Reduction Plan”.
On the third day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
Another billion dollars to turn one million homes solar.
On the fourth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
An extra $100 million to create 25 “solar towns” (you know, like Cloncurry).
On the fifth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A “Solar Continent Policy”.
On the sixth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A “Solar Cities Policy”.
On the seventh day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A “Great Barrier Reef and Crown of Thorns Policy”.
On the eighth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
Wads of money for research into solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and other pie-in-the-sky, failed “sustainable energy sources”.
On the ninth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
Wads more money for research into carbon sequestration and other perpetual motion devices.
On the tenth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A “National Energy Efficiency Partnership” so taxpayers can fund R&D for Australia’s biggest corporations.
On the eleventh day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A “Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan” so we can all pretend these animals are NOT threatened with extinction by being killed by “traditional” hunters using “traditional” high-powered rifles.
On the twelfth day of gubmint Tony will give to me –
A 15,000-strong, $400 million “Green Army” so he can funnel lots of money to Greenpeace and the WWF.
.
sarc/off
Okay, I fibbed about the perpetual motion machines, but everything else you will find here:
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/Environment%20Policy.ashx
All this and a Bipartisan Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 20% reduction in CO2 by 2020 as well.
Not to mention 20 million trees.
What’s not to like?
Oh, by the way, the concept behind Tony’s letter isn’t even original. It’s a direct pinch from Campbell Newman’s covering letter for the LNP “First 100 Days Can Do” campaign in the last QLD election.
00
I will be rallying tomorrow… Argh power to the people instead of the born to rule red heads with [c’mon, rise above 🙂 Jo]
00
If the ABC was Relevant Part 54….
(Jet-lagged edition)
[Scene: A typically chaotic teenager’s bedroom. BRYAN is discussing career options with his son, JOHN.]
Bryan: So, John, what are you going to do when you leave school?
John: Actually, Dad, I’d like a career in organised crime.
Bryan: Private or Public sector?
John: Whaddya mean?
Bryan: Private sector is like your garden variety Bikie gang member. Their job is to cause misery and harm to society through violence, extortion and drugs.
John: And the Public sector?
Bryan: Climate Science, mostly.
John: What do Climate Scientists do?
Bryan: Their job is to only cause misery and harm to society through extortion and fraud.
John: Where’s the money come from?
Bryan: Bikies beat up the people who owe them money, but Climate Scientists just get the government to do it for them.
John: How?
Bryan: With Renewable Energy Targets, Carbon Taxes, Electricity bills etc. That sort of thing.
John: What’s the pay like?
Bryan: Bikies get a lot of money, but most of it goes to the government when they get caught. Think of the “Proceeds of Crime” provisions as an industry super tax.
John: What does a climate scientist get?
Bryan: An indexed salary, paid fortnightly, with holidays, super and perks.
John: Perks?
Bryan: Junkets to exotic locations and the opportunity to lecture the Western world on the need for simpler, low intensity lifestyles.
John: Where do they go?
Bryan: Rio, Bali, Can-Cun…
John: Copenhagen?
Bryan: Not any more.
John: And the Bikies?
Bryan: They go to gaol. Also at taxpayer expense, but it’s not a junket. More an occupational hazard.
John: What’s job security like?
Bryan: In the Bikie world, if you stuff up, they beat you up and kill you.
John: What happens to climate scientists?
Bryan: No climate scientist has ever been sacked on grounds of incompetency.
John: Sounds great – how do you get in?
Bryan: It’s all about being seen and making an impression. Bikes only get their colours after a grueling probation period, during which they must perform no less than three acts of conspicuous thuggery.
John: How do you make a climate scientist?
Bryan: Usually, it’s a high fibre diet.
John: Don’t get it.
Bryan: A small joke on my part. Again, it’s a case of making an impression. Wannabe climate scientists hang around academic institutions producing scary, convoluted and semi-plausible scientific papers. The more conspicuous ones get picked up by the peer review system and, after that, they’re in.
John: Sounds great Dad. Thanks for your help.
Bryan: So what are you going to do?
John: I think I’ll be a Bikie. Climate science sounds dishonest.
Bryan: I’m proud of you, Son.
00
Excellent, Speedy!
00
Abbott with two “t’s” in the title would be good.
My last end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it post, for a while anyway!
00
You are so lucky!
At least you have an opposition leader who is ready to reject the CO2 nonsense.
In the UK all the main party leaders “believe” in it. They have enacted legislation that will cost £Billions, and cannot work.
The anti-Co2 legislation is a voice crying in the wilderness.
00
Not true. The Opposition’s policy, as developed (in part) by the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, is to cut CO2-e emissions by exactly the same amount as that proposed by the government – 5% on 2000 levels – by 2020.
The Opposition leader at various times has proposed a carbon tax, Emissions Trading Scheme, or his current direct action socialist scheme of direct state planning in the form of rebates, grants and financial penalties.
Both of the major parties in Australia support cutting carbon emissions, they just disagree on the best way to achieve this objective.
00
I sit here in my living room with just a few minutes left before midnight & ‘Carbon Sunday’, now in my dark cold residance, using only a battery powered smart phone to blog, as I start my new low greenhouse gas existance. Already the new evening meal of beans and vegetables is starting to become uncomfortable. I dare not pass wind for fear of adding to the earth’s methane levels, and I have tried not to exhale my CO2 directly into the atmosphere, but rather store it in environmentally friendly plastic bags where it will be released into my new hermetically sealed backyard greenhouse, where plants will convert my CO2 back to pure O2 and stored carbon.
My only saddness today was having all my pets put down. My dogs caused far too much emmissions for the planet. Perhaps the vegan diet proved too much for their digestion systems but the thought of any living creature eating meat is far worse. Anyway, they will make good fertiliser food for the greenhouse.
It’s very cold now without power, and my fingers are blue. I’m wondering if my actions today have somehow helped the outside (and inside) temperature of my small eco-house reach just 5 degrees centigrade. But I will now embrace the cold, knowing that in just a few short years it will be scorchingly hot. Whilst I should not look forward to warmer times, I can always read my new Gaia Bible to help keep my soul from drifting.
Also, all my own waste will now be directly recycled. This will probably mean the taste of my food will get progressively worse. But this is the new green way and we must all do our bit. I will think of you Julia when I eat my recycled food, especially when it’s been recycled several times over….
Thank you ‘queen’ Julia for showing me the path to sustainability.
00
Posted it. Thanks Carbon Free. An Ode to Gaia for Carbon Sunday. Merci.
Jo
00
Gilliard was far more honest with you than you are with yourselves.
Perhaps Westborough Baptist Church needs to give you a dose. It won’t stop you Eloi from responding to the siren song, but it will deny you the supreme consolation of sublime ignorance.
00
The carbon tax and ETS will never be repealed.
You read it here first. The reason it won’t be repealed is very simple. The permits that the government has either given or sold to businesses are THEIR PROPERTY. In order to repeal the carbon tax (which is really a fixed price ETS for the first three years), the government will have to compensate businesses by buying back all the permits “on just terms” (read the constitution).
The just terms price will be the value that they were sold to the businesses for, i.e. $23 per tonne for the first year.
Where will the money come from to do this? The revenue from the ETS has been spent in the form of income tax cuts, and increases to family payments and pensions, with the rest going to the new bank to fund cleaner energy sources. The Opposition has already said that it won’t renege on contracts that the investment bank signs (see Greg Hunt last week), so again I ask you all, where will the money come from the buy back all those carbon permits. For this financial year alone that’s $6.5 billion worth, the year after about $7.5 billion worth, the year after that almost $8 billion worth.
Where will this money come from? What other tax will be introduced, or what existing taxes will be increased? Or is the Opposition proposing to buy back all the permits using debt?
00
Adam (in case you are a real person and really interested), you are not correct in your assumptions. The carbon permits provided for free by the Government do not have a value in perpetuity. They are a ‘right’ to emit for the year issued, not ad infinitum. So the year passes, they have no more value.
In addition, if the Government passes legislation stating that it is no longer necessary to reduce emissions, it is that which makes the emission permits have no value. The Government is not taking those permits off anyone.
Businesses would be hard pressed to take any legal action for compensation because:
1. If they were given the permits for free – there is no loss incurred by them.
2. If they went out and purchased emission permits ahead of their emission needs, then they took a risk which is inherent in the market as Europe has already discovered. In addition, Tony Abbott is already on record saying he would repeal the legislation and his advice is that companies should not purchase emission permits beyond their immediate requirements.
10
Where is my free speech!?
I demand my free speech now!
——
Dunno Adam, but you act a lot like the last aggressive, ungrateful, fast posting Adam Smith who posted 990 comments rudely dominating threads until enquiries showed he was not a real person. Jo
——-
UPDATE: But just so readers don’t get the wrong idea. It’s possible this Adam Smith is not the same one. Unlike last time I have made a real contact, so please treat with respect until proven otherwise. Benefit of the doubt and all… Jo
10
.
Hello Adam Smith.
This is a privately operated web-site.
You have no automatic right to free expression here.
It is a privilege extended by the web-host.
.
Abuse it and you lose it – it is as simple as that.
10
Adam Smith, you shouldn’t complain. No one said you couldn’t say whatever you want to. You just need to allow those who disagree wth you the same right to say what they want to.
See how easy that is?
10
Yes, the Coalition says it will repeal the carbon tax. But sadly, the Coalition insists on pushing forward with its belief in IPCC junk science and that carbon dioxide is driving climate change and causing catastrophic man-made global warming. The Coalition can’t deny this. That is why it is pushing along with its alternative policy to tackle ‘climate change’.
Abbott once stated that the (IPCC) climate science was crap. How ironic that of all the many credible climate scientists who have been exposing the IPCC’s mantra, one of the greatest supporters of the IPCC, and a father of the modern green movement in Germany, has come come out and recently exposed the IPCC for getting it so wrong.
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a renewable energy expert, recently rocked the global warming community in Germany, the greenest country. He had been a firm believer in the IPCC until 2010 when he was a reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. He discovered numerous errors in the report. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Professor Vahrenholt then wondered if the IPCC reports were similarly flawed. So he began delving into the IPCC’s 2007 report and was surprised by what he discovered… the errors. He was also concerned by the lack of any discernible warming for ten years, the failed predictions of the IPCC, the revelations of the climategate emails, and the information he gained from discussions with dozens of elite sceptical scientists. He was so alarmed by this, he decided to write a book. Together with geologist/paleontologist, Dr. Sebastian Lüning, the result was a skeptical climate book titled ‘Die kalte Sonne’ (The Cold Sun).
The conclusion of Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is that the IPCC ignored a large part of the climate science, that the IPCC scientists overly exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate, and that there is simply no evidence of any coming climate catastrophe.
The IPCC junk science is the very basis on which Gillard introduced the carbon tax… and the basis on which Abbott and Hunt ignorantly continue with their catastrophic man-made global warming policy quest.
At the end of the day, both Gillard and Abbott need to understand why they are both wrong as summed up by the following quotation:
“‘Climate protection’ is a scientific swindle because the weather is not something that can be protected.” – Dr. Wolfgand Thüne, a retired German meteorologist and member of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKEE).
00
I followed the link that Tom Left and spotted this “But the consensus of economists is that it is likely to work well enough to cut emissions by 5 per cent“.
So..we output about 5% ? of world CO2..and they want to cut that by 5%..even if we eliminated all co2 from Australia tomorrow..it would not have any effect..so the point of eliminating 5% less for all that money is..there isnt one.
But supporters of the tax must know this…they cannot all be scientifically illiterate…
They must know it will not have any effect on the environment..here or anywhere else..yet many of them appear to sincerely think this will help the environment somehow.
Jokes aside..can anyone who supports the tax please tell me why they want this tax ..
00
No, the Clean Energy Act is designed to cut Australia’s emissions by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020. This objective is bipartisan, both major parties agree to it, they just disagree on how to achieve it.
There is no aim to eliminate all CO2 emissions from Australia. There is simply an aim to use a carbon price in order to get the most economic value out of the emissions we produce.
00
Remember the $200 million bailout for Holden / GM.
At the time it was announced I said that it was a subsidy to bring in the Chevy “Volt”. Lo & behold, today, the first advertisement for the Holden “Volt”
The “Volt”is a total flop in the USA and GM keep producing it because they are subsidised by the Obama Marxist administration.
The Holden Volt will subsidised here by the Labor Marxist regime, So remember when & if you are convinced to buy one you should get extra large discounts because you have already part paid for the “VOLT”.
I, for one, will never again purchase a Holden product. I will not be lied to by Gillard, Holden or anyone else. That goes for the coalition as well.
All who read this please pass it on the less informed.
00
The problem in the U.S. is that petrol taxes are way too low. In Australia they are a bit too low, but much higher in comparison.
I also think it is astonishing that you are advocating that people don’t buy Holdens because the Holden factory in Elizabeth, S.A. employs a lot of people (3000?) , so what you are ultimately suggesting is that people don’t support Australian jobs which is is a greater threat to jobs than the carbon price.
00
Hi Tom
Okay.. 🙂
For the sake of the discussion..I will assume the tax will do everything perfectly that it is supposed to..
So that will have zero effect on local environment/global environment
Yup..
I made that point as an example of reductio ad absurdum..
The point being..small cuts will mean nothing..since whole cuts would also mean nothing..to “help” the environment.
That would be post normal economics would it.?
Anway…back in the real world..are there any supporters that can answer my original question please.
00
No, it is perfectly normal economics. There are trade offs to be made in terms of the impact on the environment that industrial processes have. The whole aim of any market pricing mechanism is to get the greatest economic benefit and the least damage to the environment.
That’s basic text book economics.
Your initial question was nonsensical, so it can’t be answered.
00
Postnormal economics twice.. 🙂
I wont even ask what “economic benefit” there is..cricket sounds.. 🙂
I also just noticed the article stated “This country’s proportion of global emissions is relatively small, at about 1.4 per cent”
So its even worst than I imagined..
And the economic advantages of spending money and raising taxes to try and mitigate a % of 1.4 per cent of global CO2 output..are..so amazing.. 🙂
🙂
Not half as nonsensical as your “economic” truism analogises which have no bearing on my simple question.
So…anyone..?
00
None of this makes any contribution to an intelligent discussion of the topic at hand.
00
Just spotted a great example of of a postnormal economics designed outcome for the greatest “economic benefit ” ..
Last week, Teys Australia Meat Group said it may shut down a Brisbane meatworks for a few weeks to stay below the annual emissions threshold.
That is a brilliant economic plan..!!
So..postnormal economics lead by the nose..by postnormal science..who would have thought.. 🙂
00
Geez..
It does..but Not if you have no idea what we are talking about. 🙂
Economics-fail
Environmental benefits-Fail
I love these guys..repeat slogans..and be 100% clueless if you ask questions..
00
Geez.
If you dont have a clue..dont jump into the thread..how hard is that. ??
Economics-fail
Environmental benefits-Fail
I love these guys..repeat slogans..and be 100% clueless if you ask questions..
End of game..
Bye.. 🙂
00
[…] JoNova rapporterar att det Liberala partiet, med partiordföranden Tony Abbot, nu har gått ut med ett bestämt löfte: Om vi blir omvalda så avskaffar vi skatten omedelbart. – För att ge tyngd åt löftet anger de en detaljerad plan. […]
00
None of this makes any contribution to an intelligent discussion of the topic at hand.
00
“Within the first sitting fortnight of Parliament, the Finance Minister will introduce legislation to shut-down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.”
I love this bit. This is going further than just the Carbon Tax. Thank you, Jo, for posting this story. And thank you, Mr Abbott, you’ve got my vote. 🙂
00
Getting rid of the carbon tax is essential. But a Coalition government is a terrible price to pay.
00
[…] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Cap & Tax and tagged carbon scam, carbon tax, government cash grab. Bookmark the permalink. ← EDITORIAL: Obama’s war on guns and oil […]
00
[…] If he wins, Abbot vows to kill the Carbon Tax from Day One: admire the details […]
00