Creepy sense of déjà vu over carbon tax

Faz says:

10:21am | 07/03/11

@ PaulB

“M-M Climate change IS crap”

If that’s what you believe then the solutions offered by either party are, by extension, ‘crap’ too.

That kinda deals you out of any argument about the details, doesn’t it?

troy says:

11:06am | 07/03/11

@Faz. I would be happy to pay a tax if just anyone of the left side could explain how much our earths temp would drop if we paid this tax? Its a simple question, if I am going to pay for something I want to know what I will get in return. Funny after all this crap Kearney has wrote about how bad Abbott is for trying to save us a few bucks, and how the whole world is getting on board carbon pricing (even though they all say they are not) she still is unable to answer one question as to why Australians paying a Carbon Tax is going to save the earth, and for that matter neither can you. Faz you bag anyone who doesnt agree with your left wing ideology, but you still cant make a case for Gillards Lie, or Australians paying a carbon tax.

Phil says:

11:56am | 07/03/11

Troy I wonder if Faz and Ged would be so happy to save the planet if the tax was a flat amount and everyone paid their fair share without compensation.

Whilst the poluters release plant food to the environment (sure maybe the quantity might be a tad high in some circumstances) they dont do so for themselves. They do it in the case of base load electricity so people can turn on the lights/air conditioning/cook food etc. They do so in fuel production so one can drive a car. They do so with gas production so other industry can survive. Industries whether they build cars, toilet paper, produce food or provide services do so generally for others, thus it is the end consumer who requires the carbon be emitted for the goods/services they require.

Like you I would like to know if we bring the Carbon Tax in, just what will be the temperature in 5 years to what it will be if there is no carbon dioxide tax?
If after say 5 years that this has been in there is no differences, then can we either -
Have our monies refunded?
Have the carbon tax recinded immediately?
If taxing us as they say will make us more competitive, then why not tax us even more?

No one is arguing whether we need to reduce emissions, but the mechanisms to do so, how it should be paid for and by whom. Clearly if you tax a business/entity they will pass on the costs to consumers. This point is not in dispute.

Surely it should be everyones burden regardless of income level. Maybe Ged and Faz and other pro Carbon Tax advocates might like to explain if your on say less than $ 60,000 a year how you dont add carbon dioxide to the environment? How is compensating anyone going to change their behaviour?

Will any initial compensation be indexed if te scheme ever moves to a cap and trade system, or will we see pensioners sitting in the cold and dark as they cant afford the cost of electricity.

Finally I wonder how much money was spent in India, China and America of the $162 Billion. Not much. Germany is being hailed as a green hero, but for every one of the 330,000 green jobs created it cost over $ 200,000. A little like the second stimulus package. hardly great value.

Faz says:

12:22pm | 07/03/11

@ troy

Again, if you can’t believe a benefit can be demonstrated from Labor’s policy in terms of ‘return’, the question is do you believe the Lib’s policy is any better on that benchmark?

If you do, I’d be interested in how. If you don’t and it’s all crap anyhow and both policies fail.

Keith Hammersmith says:

12:31pm | 07/03/11

that graph Eric really shows why Labor was sooo against work choices hey….

you know workchoices,  the system that gave Australia the lowest unemployment it has ever seen,  least amount of lost production days due to industrial dispute thus raising our GDP etc etc

macca-d says:

12:39pm | 07/03/11

Hi Troy,

It helps us to prevent damaging climate change in 3 ways that I can think of:

1) Tax raised goes into funding green R&D ...this in turn results in innovation/technology which drives down the cost of green power making it competitive with (eventually cheaper than) fossil fuels.  This can be exported worldwide.

2) Providing inncentives to use green energy, and disincentives to use fossil fuels, will reduce Australia’s carbon footprint.  Though small, any improvement will buy time for the world to adapt to new climate & new technology.

3)  A carbon price gives Australia credibility in negotiating with other countries on addressing issues relating to climate change and pollution of shared resources.

You cant be real says:

02:25pm | 07/03/11

@ macca-d. “It helps us to prevent damaging climate change in 3 ways that I can think of”. For a start you have to believe in damaging climate change, don’t you? And then accept that C02 is the primary cause.
Similar to the committee for pricing carbon. When you convene any committee with a foregone conclusion, in this case that a price on carbon is the only way forward and no other options are viable, it sort of becomes a self licking ice-cream doesn’t it?
Like an NBN, why waste time and resources carrying out a cost benefit analysis as we all KNOW we NEED ultra highspeed broadband via fibre to the home.
And to those holding up the countries that have already introduced either a carbon tax or some form of ETS as glowing examples of how well it all works, have a close look at their economies. My research has indicated that only one country appears to be doing well, and that is by returning the tax to the companies paying it on the proviso that it be used for R&D.
Still equates to a rise in the cost of living but this is shared equally by ALL consumers, and forces companies to invest in alternate options. It does not just re-distibute wealth which is what the LEFT propose through the regime they are promoting.

Mayday says:

03:31pm | 07/03/11

Laugh of the day Erice….....many thanks!

Markus says:

03:38pm | 07/03/11

“1) Tax raised goes into funding green R&D”
GST was designed to be a substitute for (among others) Stamp Duty, and the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol were supposed to go into funding the costs to the healthcare system.
What part of any government’s recent track record makes you believe the tax will actually go into funding green R&D?

Boganomics says:

10:39pm | 07/03/11

The carbon tax is a sham.
Australia’s forests and oceans ABSORB many times more CO2 than our small population could ever produce. These are intentionally left out of IPCC CO2 absorption calculations entirely. No Australian should be dumb enough to pay for absorbing the CO2 emissions of other countries.
An accurate CO2 trading system would make Australia very rich for absorbing massive amounts of CO2 through our forests and oceans .
The current system was designed by European countries with no fossil fuel reserves, limited forests and little or no ocean territory.  It is designed to destroy Australia’s comparative advantage of cheaper fossil fuel energy and hence cheaper production costs.

Faz says:

06:23am | 07/03/11

Fair enough Damian. It’s hard to trust her.

We should all be going for the guy who, when unscripted, believes climate change is crap. When scripted, he has come up with a plan which will attempt to significantly reduce our dependence on carbon but won’t cost anybody anything.

Now that’s trustworthy!

Joan says:

07:46am | 07/03/11

The most creepy thing is that Labor and media expect Australians to accept backtabber Gillards lies and to roll over to Gillard CarbonTax/Carbon Price double talk.  Gillard should wash her mouth out with soap and water…..then say sorry to the Australian voter for her pre-election No Carbon Tax lie .. then call an immediate election so that voters can give their real vote for the real carbon policy. You bet Rudd doesn’t trust Gillard and with her backstabbing ways and blatant lies why should Australians? Australia is history with a blatant liar backstabber Gillard and her pack of misfits running the country.

Gladys says:

08:00am | 07/03/11

I agree with Damian. She said she would not introduce such a scheme while she was leader. She rolled Rudd because the scheme was politically not going so well with the public.

So why should we trust her to do this, do it with the interests of oridinary people at heart?

Gillard is a political animal and of the worst breed.

Pete says:

08:25am | 07/03/11

Damiian…weren’t the Libs headed by the man once called the ‘lying rodent’ by his own party? And didn’t that same man invent the core/promise/non-core promise quote? Tony Abbott was a student of Little Johnny, he’s equally adept at toying with the truth

Give me a break

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:39am | 07/03/11

That Ms Kearney would support a proven liar and one who, furthermore, only has her fat arse on the Government benches *because* she lied, says a lot about Ms Kearney and the union movement. Victory at any price, even honour and integrity. 
 
Woinder which safe seat the union backroom boys will parachute her into?

Dave says:

09:04am | 07/03/11

All politicians are liars. Remember John Howard? He told a fair number of porkies as well. Children Overboard ring a bell? GST?

I dont like JG at all. But I do like the fact that’s she seems to have grown a political spine since Christmas. I’d rather her attempt something and fail, and lie in the process, than attempt nothing at all.

PaulB says:

09:07am | 07/03/11

Faz.  M-M Climate change IS crap.  If it was all as they say then any mitigation strategy, including incentives would be on the table.  What little incentive scheme there was is being rolled back to unviable, and the whole focus has become about taxing (making the tax look like a charge by applying it to the provider, who then recoups through ever higher charges to us).  The truth of what they say can often be divined from the things they don’t say or do.

john says:

09:13am | 07/03/11

What happened to all that Kevin07 euphoria, holding hands singing ‘Kumbaya’ with sunshine, rainbows & lollypops, whilst wearing rose colored glasses?

How did you all get sucked in?

I certain the liberals are dragging all this out to burn those labor voters just a little more.

dovif says:

09:54am | 07/03/11

Dave

Political spine for Gillard?

Have you asked why the Green decided to support the ALP for government so quickly?

How about if it was Gillard who had poliitical spine, why was the Greens and independants sharing the podium with her when they were anouncing the Carbon Tax.

Why did she specificly said 5 months ago that there will not be a CARBON TAX under her prime ministership

The answer: It was Bob Brown who had spine and forced a Carbon tax, Gillard would do anything to stay prime minister, including lying. Not much spine required

acotrel says:

10:15am | 07/03/11

Tony Abbott is doing a good job!  He is the true face of the Liberal Party!

Mayday says:

03:32pm | 07/03/11

Phil Jones (Climategate) and Al Bore lied too!

Faz says:

06:25am | 07/03/11

“That’s why you’ll find it is rarely even used by the MSM.”

There’s a benchmark for ya!

BobM says:

06:54am | 07/03/11

‘Workchoices’ = Labor scare campaign = hypocrite.

I am going to really enjoy watching NSW Labor annihilated on March 26th - a premonition for Qld Labor and Federal Labor.

Pete says:

08:22am | 07/03/11

Dunno about that BobM, certianly NSW Labour is going down the toilet, but QLD is line-ball again and federal labour getting belted? Not likely given the blokes the Liberals have at the top….and wait ‘il the no policy Libs take control in NSW…O’Farell will not last

Scarneck says:

09:46am | 07/03/11

That’s right William…look after the big end of town because the big end of town will look after you and me - Right?

FelicityC says:

02:12pm | 07/03/11

MarK OMG it seems I have wandered into the land of the dinosaurs. Poor MarK what is it you dont understand about Greens policies and direction ? I know I know there are some big words on the Greens website and understand your difficulty in understanding them but just try MarK and a whole new world will open up to you. I suggest you get used to it as the Greens are here to stay. July 1 is just around the corner MarK. Dont tell me you eat chicken wings too - please ?

Leigh says:

06:34am | 07/03/11

that’s amazing!!!!
Please post more Nora so that mainstream Australia can get a better appreciation of what the watermelons stand for…....a suspension of democracy itself, so that you can inflict on us your own twisted version of life, and how we should live it.

TimB says:

06:54am | 07/03/11

So only the rabid views of the Greens should be published? Sorry you don’t get to push your lifestyle choices on me, or anyone else.
And you certainly don’t get to censor opinions that don’t agree with yours.

Sorry, I’ll be laughing at you as I chow down into my chicken legs at lunch time.

Eric #2 says:

08:10am | 07/03/11

Nora - I’m starting to form the opinion that you are simply stirring to get a bite.  My gut feeling is that you don’t believe what you are saying - just game playing!

rob brown says:

08:22am | 07/03/11

Wow, and i thought no one could be more delusional than Bob Brown…guess i was wrong…

PaulB says:

09:11am | 07/03/11

Now I’m convinced you’re a disinfo project “Nora”.  Too many preplanned extreme talking points crammed into one post and delivered blandly without passion, like a speech.  This isn’t the way to do it.  I’m sure Persephone is just at the next workstation.  Ask him/her how its done.

FelicityC says:

09:12am | 07/03/11

@TimB there you go again TimB pushing only the rabid views of your Liberals . The Greens at least have a position on Climate Change and Carbon Tax where your Liberal pary to which you are a member do not. Whats it like TimB being in a party with nothing at all to say on anything ?

ZSRenn says:

09:33am | 07/03/11

Good one Nora! Thanks for adding some humor to the debate.

What is sad though is that this is the same stance was promoted by Professor Will Steffan a member of the governments new Climate Change Committee.

In May 2010 he slammed the media for giving both sides of the CC debate a say and described the Anti CC side as infantile at best.

Again thanks for the laugh but in your own way have bought some Déjà Vu to my day.

TimB says:

10:30am | 07/03/11

Ooh looky. I have a new fan. Awesomesauce.

Hello Felicity. Supporting a party who’s policy it is to eat chicken legs for lunch is great, thanks for asking.

How about you? How’s it feel to be a member of a party that hates Humanity? I hope you’ve performed your daily self-flagellation as penance for using the evil carbon-burning computer.

WayneT says:

10:34am | 07/03/11

Bloody Nora! - Your at it again.  Still trying to censure any view that isn’t your own - your still not learning.  Pray tell, how do animal products cause heaps of Carbon, unless I burn my steak on the BBQ? While the animal is alive it’s methane output has 4 times the effect on the greenhouse effect than the CO2 does.  Better off dead and on my plate I say. People like you are the true deniers in this whole debacle. You refuse to see that there a lot of science out there that shows that human produced CO2 is not responsible for the climate changes underway.  In fact there isn’t one peer reviewed scientific paper that shows a direct link.  I can on the other hand show you 450 peer reviewed papers supporting scepticism of AGW caused global warming. Just because your idol Al Gore say’s the science is settled and the debate is over doesn’t make it so.  Since when is science ever settled?  None of the modelling or IPCC predictions have matched the real world data that is being collected.  And I hate to break it to you but Carbon, or better yet, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.  There is no consensus of scientists around the world.  Don’t rely on all your facts coming from the MSM Nora, they no longer have any credibility when it comes to printing the truth.  They have become fat and lazy and no longer research anything they spew out onto the airwaves.  I’ll tell you what Nora, why don’t you show us why Australia should go it alone first by going it alone and give up all your Carbon Dioxide producing mod cons, and see how long you last.

AdamC says:

10:50am | 07/03/11

Is this Nora R Ferguson the alter ego of a right-puncher? If it is, I have to commend them!

(If not, ‘Naughty’ Nora is just about confirming the worst thoughts everyone has about the nutty zealotry of the Greens. Or she’s a teenage troll or something.)

FelicityC says:

11:31am | 07/03/11

TimB they say the further right you go the loonier you get. Well TimB you are the full monty gorgeous. Whats it feel like to be out there with Dr Strangelove as your leader ? Have you read the Greens website for illumination poor TimB ? Guess not. Well I see you have one policy and that is to eat chicken legs for lunch. That about says it all doesnt it TimB. Me I am having a delious salad with tofu. Yum yum. Maybe we should get together TimB and Felicity can set you straight and get you actually thinking again. Been a while huh ?

john says:

11:58am | 07/03/11

@Nora R Ferguson even IF a carbon tax is introduced, it wont stop global warming, it may slow it down a little to buy us time.

Humans without any other type of activity pump out a cumulative 244 billion degrees of heat every moment. Every tree that is removed increases the average temperature in that spot by 20-30degrees. Every car that starts its engine heats up to ~200 degrees.  Every jet engine that starts up runs at 850 degrees.

Regardless of what we do the planet will heat up from human activity, the only short term option is to populate in orbit, moon or mars.

Reminds me I gotta boil the kettle to 100+degrees, I suppose if everyone on the planet made a cuppa every morning they will generate nearly a trillion degrees a day.

Surely your not asking me to give up my morning cuppa?

MarK says:

12:16pm | 07/03/11

“Have you read the Greens website for illumination poor TimB”

I did.

It sort of went from farce and comedy to true horror.

I look at it from time to time to see what’s up.

The picture on the front page atm with the amigos and Gillard standing there looking mute as Brown announced his carbon tax to an appreciative nation is very telling.

Beautiful angle.

Leaves no doubt who is in charge.

TimB says:

01:40pm | 07/03/11

“Maybe we should get together”

Are you asking me out Felicity? You should know that I prefer my tofu deep fried in pig fat. With chicken salt. With beef gravy on the side.

Oh and we’re going to have to take seperate taxis to where we are going. I’m meeting someone beforehand. He’s getting me a sweet deal on a batch of black market incandescent light globes. I’ll need the extra room to carry them around.

Obviously says:

01:48pm | 07/03/11

FelicityC
I would suggest that you need to take separate taxis because TimB’s bulk would take up the entire back seat of the taxi based on his eating habits. You can’t ride shotgun either, because that’s where his bucket of chicken for the ride would be.

FelicityC says:

02:02pm | 07/03/11

TimB I have this dreadful vision of you in my mind of you wearing largish trousers held up by braces over a dirty singlet barefoot with unclipped toenails chomping on chicken pieces from a box marked “KFC” ? Close am I ? As you have elected to be a member of a non-thinking directionless political party what else am I to think ?

FelicityC says:

02:05pm | 07/03/11

Obviously - thanks for the good advice. We Greens are a very particular people and the picture you paint of TimB is a ghastly one indeed but of course with his alignment with a non thinking political party what else could we expect. Poor TimB alas we knew him well.

TimB says:

02:19pm | 07/03/11

Actually the chicken in question was cooked by myself yesterday. Marinated in Soy/garlic & baked. Rather healthy actually.

I know it destroys the image of me you all have. Try to survive the shock if you can.

FelicityC says:

02:34pm | 07/03/11

TimB I have been a little too harsh on you so heres a little dedication to soothe the savage beast - Nils Lofgren and “Black Books”. One of the best guitar solos at the end you have heard. Enjoy TimB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDljVXS9RHE&feature=related

Obviously says:

02:42pm | 07/03/11

TimB
It must have been the tofu deep fried in pig fat. With chicken salt. With beef gravy on the side you have for a starter, that gave you those ankles the size of a rubbish bins.

TimB says:

02:55pm | 07/03/11

@ Obviously, you base your theory on the assumption that I actually eat tofu.

Defining the circumstances under which I would actually touch the stuff doesn’t mean I eat it regularly, if at all.

Obviously says:

03:27pm | 07/03/11

TimB said
“You should know that I prefer my tofu deep fried in pig fat. With chicken salt. With beef gravy on the side.”
You prefer your tofu done like this? Seems to me that implies you have eaten tofu this way and many others before you settled on this preference.

Mayday says:

03:33pm | 07/03/11

Eat more animal protein and fat….....its good for the brain.

TimB says:

04:41pm | 07/03/11

Obviously it was a joke *eyeroll*

Not suprised you didn’t get that you don’t appear to have much of a sense of humor.

Protip- I’m not really stcking up on lightbulbs either.

PTom says:

12:46pm | 07/03/11

Funny Luke So what was the Parnetal Leave levy or the pollution levy? Just non-continually increasing tax’s by the Liberal.

What extactly do the Liberals supported in the Henry Tax report again?

Mattb says:

04:07pm | 07/03/11

Umm Luke
Where’s all the billions of dollars that TA and his libs are going to throw at their climate change policy coming from?.

As the new liberal party policy director, Pauline Hanson, would say “please explain”.......

billy says:

07:53am | 07/03/11

So if Abbott won the last election he would have no choice but to negotiate with the Greens. So you would say the same
Abbott is Bob Brown’s personal puppet and that leaves us all screwed.

Dash says:

08:32am | 07/03/11

billy, after the next election, the LNP wont need to negotiate with anyone!

billy says:

09:45am | 07/03/11

I’m afraid they will, the Green will hold the balance of power in the Senate. Anyhow dont believe what Abbott is tell you. Just like floating the dollar and the GST, we will have no choice but to introduce a carbon Tax. I fact this was LNP policy in 2007 supported by Abbott.
Abbott even aggreed at the time that a carbon Tax was the best solution.

The Badger says:

10:31am | 07/03/11

If nothing else billy, Abbott is consistent just say NO to everything.
The way I read the dash comment is that the LNP won’t be negotiating with anyone, because they won’t be in power.
I mean really, do you want to vote for a party that only has NO for an answer to every question? Swinging voters will be tired of the one trick pony by the next election.
Meanwhile, Labor will be moving the nation forward.

Dash says:

10:41am | 07/03/11

Billy, you assume the green vote will not be impacted by these policies.

If you read my posts you’ll realise that I am concerned that this is not about the environment and it is all about wealth redistribution dressed up as an environmental policy. Compensation is based on income not who’s polluting! The way this is being done is wrong. It punishes hard working successful people and rewards others on the basis of income alone. I do not and never will believe in such a socialist system.

In Australia, people need to be given the opportunity to work for a better life for themselves and their children without being penalised for doing so.

Tax the polluters? Fine go ahead, but that is not what this policy does Billy. Look closely at the compensation part of the policy and you will see that Middle Australia and high income earners are the ones who will pay regardless of how they pollute. It’s a sham!

Dash says:

10:52am | 07/03/11

The Badger, you need to be medicated for your delusion!

Profits tax, flood tax, carbon tax, school hall rorts, green loans sham, insulation fiascos, record budget defecit, record federal debt, groceries up, fuel up, electricity up, water up, childcare up. If that’s Labor moving us forward, I think a few of us would like to get off the ride.

The LNP say no because the ALP are coming up with policies that are causing significant damage to this nation and it’s people. The Howard government delivered full employment, repaid $96billion in ALP debt and restored the nations AAA rating. Perhaps if the ALP listened to no, we wouldn’t have gone backwards over the last three years.

See you at the “Stop the Carbon Tax” rally Badger!

WayneT says:

11:07am | 07/03/11

@ Billy - They will only have the power to block the Governments legislation for 6 months after the election.  The Greens can’t pass any Legislation on their own without it first passing through the Lower House, where they won’t have the numbers.  They will be pretty toothless for those first 6 months of a new Government.  Plenty of time for the LNP to line up all their paperwork for when the Greens are gone.

The Badger says:

11:40am | 07/03/11

yes dash
let’s all adopt the nationals and one nation policies.
Spin things the way you want. Labor is moving us forward, building infrastructure and addressing the challenges of the future.
The LNP have a policy of NO. Not a lot of room to move with that policy, but at least you know where they stand - firmly on the side of NO.
Flood levy - good for the nation and good for Queensland
Mining Tax - good for the nation. Let’s invest the proceeds in infrastructure
Carbon tax - a good start to addressing AGW, giving business certainty and building the foundation for renewable technology industry.
The rest is your opinion. Albeit very poorly thought out and incorrect.

Beats just saying NO to everything.

PS - not much left to sell dash - you conservatives sold it all off under Howard.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:06pm | 07/03/11

Badger

you’ll have to do better than that. Keating was the man for a fire-sale, needing to prop up the budget, and a quick persual via your favourite search engine will prove it. Kinda hard to make bullshit claims when it is all out there. 
 
Here let me help http://tinyurl.com/63v7cl4

simon says:

12:23pm | 07/03/11

Badger you are so deluded, everything you sprout is merely your own opinion too. I must say I generally pass by your comments as they are so off the mark and you are so out of touch with mainstream Australia that you are starting to believe your own rubbish. The reason the Coalition disagree with Labor’s policies is because pretty much everything they have come up with places a further burden on households. If I remember right this will be the 8th new tax foisted onto Australians by this hopelessly inept government. So while the rest of the world tries to become more efficient in government this crazy bunch just want to increase taxes, increase government, increase bureaucracy and increase the burden on everyone so they can increase their pork barreling and waste. The government should be looking to a smaller, lighter less intrusive government that is more efficient. Labor would not know how to do that, all they can do is spend, waste, tax and pork barrel. No wonder the Coalition disagree with everything they put up. I don’t know about you but I want to live in a free society where taxes are low and with minimal government intervention, this is what the Coalition stand for. Labor are all about communism, socialism, authoritarian rule and lack of accountability. If you want to live like that, go live in North Korea!!!

PTom says:

12:49pm | 07/03/11

So if PM Bob control everything he said Carbon Tax before the last election, how again did so-called Green Government lie?

Dash says:

12:54pm | 07/03/11

Badger, Tax tax tax, spend spend spend - yeah right, good for the nation. Infrustructure? The Howard government built the Darwin to Adelaide railway. The ALP can’t even build one between Epping and Parrammatta! Lol.

I’m prepared to put my economics degree, masters and MBA opinions up against your degree in bullshit any day of the week pal!

Mattb says:

03:58pm | 07/03/11

@dash
“I’m prepared to put my economics degree, masters and MBA opinions up against your degree in bullshit any day of the week pal!”

Oh, look at me, I’m so smart I’ve got uni degrees…..

So what, doesn’t make you an expert in anything, I’ve got a uni degree in environmental science/management, easiest thing I’ve ever done in my life, almost anyone can study and pass at university. Some of the highest passing academics I know are also the dumbest people I know too!

Go on then dash, put your economics degree to good use and tell us how much the governments carbon tax is going to cost us, come on lets hear it….

Oh wait, the figures, control measures, analysis etc etc. haven’t actually been released yet, so you can’t. Your just baseing your arguement on assumption, feeding off and promoting your beloved TA and his lieberal party’s instant scare campaign. 

And while your at it please tell us why the liberals have a climate change policy at all if they don’t even believe in climate change, just like some of their faithful followers on this blog?. Please tell us how much their policy of throwing fists full of tax payers dollars at big poluters in the hope they will change their ways is going to cost us all. Or is it going to cost us nothing because TA is just LYING about introducing a climate change policy?

I’m eagerly awaiting your figures miss ‘master of economics’....

Mattb says:

04:14pm | 07/03/11

@ ATM
“Gillard is Bob Brown’s personal puppet and that leaves us all screwed.”

Abbott is Pauline Hanson’s personal puppet and that leaves us all screwed…

See what I did there, I took your pathetic little snippet of useless imput and changed it to create my own pathetic little snippet of useless imput.

Matt says:

04:45pm | 07/03/11

@MattB
Pauline Hanson isn’t even a politician, and last I heard, had left/was leaving the county. Care to explain how Tony Abbott is Pauline Hanson’s “puppet”? Or are you simply being moronic?

Moby says:

06:16pm | 07/03/11

@ The Badger

Flood levy - good for the nation and good for Queensland
Good for queensland, yes…..the rest of the nation is another question, as from what I can recall every other state has INSURANCE to cover these costs.

Mining Tax - good for the nation. Let’s invest the proceeds in infrastructure
Good for the nation, maybe.  But the constitutional issues and mining companies no longer being as quick to open/extend new and current operations in the medium to long term could be a problem to say the least.
Carbon tax - a good start to addressing AGW, giving business certainty and building the foundation for renewable technology industry.
So taxing everyone on their income level, and then returning ALL of the taxes to lower income earners is going to build the foundation for renewably technology??  Sounds more like socialism to me, the tax itself doesn’t bother me as its not unaffordable, but at least use a good proportion of the money to get to cleaner technologies.

Eric #2 says:

08:15am | 07/03/11

“low-carbon future is an inevitability. The nations that cope the best with this will be the ones who get in early and proactively start trying to reshape their economies in a deliberate and considered way.

Sounds like the sort of stuff an average uni student would include in a Marketing 101 introductory assignment.  LOL!

Dash says:

08:30am | 07/03/11

Adam, the ACTU members come from the demographic that will be compensated! They are winners as are other ALP and green aligned sections of the community. The rest of us in middle Australia get screwed!

This is an exercise in taxing you and I. Plain and simple! It’s not about the environment, it’s about socialism. Gillard was a member of the Socialist Forum right up untill 2002 remember!

Go onto the greens sight and look at their tax policies. Higher taxes on corporates and higher taxes on individuals. This is what the ALP are doing. And they lied to secure the election and then use the environment as an excuse to punish us!

Forget the environmental arguments around this because this tax has nothing to do with the envioronment! Get the government to come clean about the compensation part of this policy!

Mattb says:

04:37pm | 07/03/11

@Dash
“Adam, the ACTU members come from the demographic that will be compensated! They are winners as are other ALP and green aligned sections of the community. The rest of us in middle Australia get screwed!”

Umm dash, please back these claims up with credible links.
How do you know the ACTU members come from the demographic that will be compensated?. Are you claiming they are low income earners?.
A lot of the union members I know work in the mining and construction industries (myself included), not exactly low socio-economic types. Two of the guys I work with have partners that are registered nurses (they are in the nurses union) and I hate to have to tell you but they aren’t exactly ‘low income earners’.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, meantioning that sort of screws up your argument, but keep up the union bashing dash, TA loves you for it….ya twit.

PTom says:

01:29pm | 07/03/11

You Liberal support keep coming up with the same BS. China and India are doing nothing. We will be the first to act and destory the economy.

Did you think that a low carbon world has other benfit besides climate change. Like with the world population contuines to grow and Coal and Oil will not last for every. So do you want to have Clean air, high standard of living and energy then new and better source of energy need to be found asap?  But I guess you don’t because like so many Liberals are such short term thinkers.

BTW China spends more on one source of renewable energy then we do in total.

iansand says:

01:46pm | 07/03/11

Samuel - Have you run an eye over the 12th Five Year Plan?

ZSRenn says:

02:41pm | 07/03/11

Neither have you Ian They are still in the Hall of the People. Unless President Hu sent you a heads up which I extremly doubt.

Yes they are talking about doing research and spending money to see if they can make money from green technology but they will not abandon whats works until they have it fixed in gold.

Funny thing is their economy is growing so fast and is in such a strong position they dont have to add an extra tax to do the R&D

iansand says:

04:42pm | 07/03/11

ZSRenn- Do you think what goes into the Hall of the People changes much?  When did the place turn into a democracy.

Of course they exceeded their targets on the 11th plan

persephone says:

08:40am | 07/03/11

Glenn

Which is why the Commonwealth is not taxing the resource, Because they can’t. Because of the Constitution.

The same constitution which allows the Feds to tax businesses, which is what they’re proposing.

Yes, you’re right. In recent days, Coalition members have been asked to name economists who support their action on climate change. Malcolm Turnbull couldn’t come up with a single name. Andrew Robb came up with two - one a former Liberal staffer and the other who asked that, for the sake of his professional reputation, the Liberals stopped using his name, as he didn’t support their plan.

Add to that that most experts who have assessed their scheme have found that it would not see a 5% cut in emissions, but a 17% rise and would be a far more expensive option for taxpayers.

On the other hand, the government’s proposed plan is the same as that recommended by the majority of economists world wide, will reduce cost of living burdens for the average taxpayer, and can achieve the emissions reductions required by using market forces.

So yes, there are serious questions about how much good one of them will actually do.

Dash says:

08:58am | 07/03/11

Absolutely correct Glenn. Let’s hope more people wake up to the fact that this is a wealth redistribution scheme and is not about the environment. It’s socialism at it’s worst and the government is trying to dress it up as fundamental to saving the planet! And I might add, are bringing it in despite their election eve lie!

Dash says:

09:08am | 07/03/11

Perse - bullshit! Explain the compensation scheme to us please. Any compensation scheme which is based on income and not pollution, is not about the environment. To me this is a socialist wealth redistribution exercise and nothing more. Please explain which households get compensated and why those that don’t deserve all of their electricity and fuel dependent prices to rise? Particularly when those households unlikely to be compensated, are already paying the most tax and are already providing more revenue for the government to reduce the nations carbon footprint.

I believe this policy is a SHAM on the back of an election lie. Please tell us how the compensatin scheme is going to work and why it is not a socialist exercise in redistributing middle Australias hard earned income.

Unless the ALP can answer this question, they stand to cop a huge backlash.

Matt says:

10:17am | 07/03/11

Dash, persephone apparently thinks the carbon tax will be paid out of share dividends, so I don’t think you’ll get much sense from her on the topic.

Dash says:

09:26am | 07/03/11

100% correct. Everyone needs to understand that this is exactly what the government is doing! They are hiding behind the environment to punish hard working successful people driving the economy. Bloody disgrace!

The Badger says:

02:01pm | 07/03/11

Yes dash
They are hiding behind the environment to punish you.
or
They are trying to address AGW, give business certainty and give technology a kick start in developing renewable energy solutions.

Of course if you don’t agree with Abbott who believe that mankind is contributing to Global Warming, then you would think it was about anything but the environment.

PS - Why don’t you go back to that acclaimed internet university whatsamattaU where you got your other degrees and get one in conspiracy theories. Might help your arguments in the future.

Dash says:

02:54pm | 07/03/11

Ha ha Badger. I’ll let the people at Maquarie Uni know you don’t rate their qualifications.

Badger, you’re comprehension is seriously lacking! I’ll say it again, any compensation policy based on income rather than pollution is not about the environment! No one is complaining about an environmental policy just the fact that Gillard lied to secure an election victory and is now implementing a socialist taxation regime on the back of the environment!

Two households each polluting exactly the same, the one in the ALP demographic gets compensation and the one in the LNP demographic doesn’t!!! How is that about “punishing the polluters”. That’s the point I am making. Please explain to us why the greens and the ALP are following this policy of wealth redistribution! Such a policy is not necessary to save the world Badger.

simon says:

03:00pm | 07/03/11

Badger the problem with the carbon tax is that AGW has not been proven, so that just makes the whole tax that much more stupid. If you have proof of AGW, I would love to see it.

Oh and by the way, if you do happen to find some “proof”, i can easily find double the number of studies that discredit AGW.

Humans only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, so don’t go on about this altering temperatures, because that is complete rubbish.

You espouse the carbon tax, yet there is absolutely no concrete proof of man made climate change. Your entire argument is based on conjecture, speculation, lies, falsehoods and computer models that can give you any answer you like depending upon the assumptions.

Oh and the best certainty you can give business is to throw this idiotic tax in the bin.

Matt C says:

03:17pm | 07/03/11

No Badger, they are hiding behind the environment to fund their socialst agenda. As I said above, it’s right there in the article - they’re going to tax industry and give it to low income earners.

The Badger says:

03:30pm | 07/03/11

simon
If you don’t believe in AGW, you are out of step with Abbott, Gillard, Turnbull and the vast majority of climate scientists who have submitted peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Everything you say after you admit you are in denial is just background noise meant to distract and deny.

simon says:

08:06pm | 07/03/11

Badger, I want to see concrete scientific evidence, which just isn’t there, I apply due diligence to my decision making process, and so should this government. Furthermore a government would want to be 100% sure about something before making baseless knee-jerk responses.

Is that too much to ask from a government that clearly stated before the last election that there would be no carbon tax?

simon says:

10:38am | 07/03/11

I agree, if Labor and the Greens are serious about reducing emissions they should allow nuclear. This carbon tax is about wealth distribution, not lowering emissions.

Robbo says:

11:02am | 07/03/11

I think the other scam the Govt is running is that rather than tax individuals directly they will tax companies who will in turn increase their prices to offset this tax.  All price increases mean an increase in GST for the govt so they get to double dip out your pocket every time.
There would be no increase to GST if we were all taxed directly.

Simone says:

03:23pm | 07/03/11

Nuclear power plants are not coalition policy.
Tell me again, what Australian political party has nuclear power plants as a policy?

If the liberals were serious about reducing emissions they should come out with a policy backing nuclear power. This carbon tax is about lowering emissions, giving business certainty and investing in developing renewable alternatives to current pollution intensive methodologies.
People that don’t believe in AGW are out of step with Gillard, Turnbull and the thinkers of the world. Even some non thinkers like Abbott believes in AGW.

Greg says:

04:31pm | 07/03/11

So simone, why does the tax also come with a compensation scheme designed to redistribute wealth. Is that socialist agenda necessary to save the planet?

Also why has the world cooled during the last two years? And why did the world cool during the 70s when carbon dioxide levels had been rising since 1940?

Do you think Carbon dioxide which is fundamental to life on earth, is a pollutant? Given this is less than 5% of total green house gases, why are we so focussed on it?

When will the ALP tell us how much AGW is caused by our output in Australia? When will they prove the impact of their tax on saving the planet? How much green house gas will be reduced and how much of the worlds total is it? Who is profiting from this tax? Why are the ALP selling coal to China and India if they believe it is evil? Wouldn’t that cause more pollution that will be saved by this tax? How will they decide who gets compensated? When will they come clean and explain that to the electorate?

Please explain how this tax will lower emmissions in industries where there is no viable alternative energy? Wont it just be passed down to the consumer? How does announcing a carbon tax give business any more certainty than announcing there wouldn’t be one at the last election?

The world may be warming but you can’t prove what’s driving it! Man’s contribution to Co2 is approximately 0.2% of total green house gases! Why is the government focusing just on that?

Are the ALP serious?? If so, using your logic, where’s their Neuclear power policy. Or would that cause a tiff with their green masters?

simon says:

10:11am | 07/03/11

Unions should stay out of this altogether, they have no business sticking their noses into this. It has nothing to do with them at all, and what right does a union member have in commenting on this issue. The whole Labor party is filled with union hacks with no business experience and thus have no credibility or expertise in this area at all. Unions need to stop poking their noses into Australians lives.

Simone says:

03:35pm | 07/03/11

Businessmen should stay out of this altogether, they have no business sticking their noses into this. It has nothing to do with them at all and what right does a businessman have in commenting on this issue. The whole Liberal party is filled with capitalistic business hacks with no real life experience and thus have no credibility or expertise in this area at all. Businesses need to stop poking their noses into Australians lives.

DocBud says:

09:03am | 07/03/11

The primary purpose of this tax is to redistribute money from those who don’t vote Labor to those who probably do while trying to keep the Greens and independents sufficiently happy that they’ll keep Julia in power.

Dash says:

09:21am | 07/03/11

Hi Elphaba, welcome to the Socialist Republic of Australia!

Yep this whole working families line is a bloody disgrace. I have three kids and a dependant wife. I spend 13 hours a day away from home trying to look after them. And I don’t seem to fit the ACTU and ALP defenition of working family! And I am not alone I’m sure. But if I was claiming benefits and paying no tax, I’d be up for compensation! What a disgraceful joke!

So those who are already paying the most tax and contributing the most financially to our society will get stung by this tax. Those already providing the most in revenue to the government which should help them tackle climate change are expected to pay even more.

When you consider two households polluting exactly the same, but only the one in the ALP demographic gets compensatation, it shows this policy up for what it really is. And the propaganda machine is now in over-drive!

Elphaba says:

10:50am | 07/03/11

@Dash, I had a similar situation (re: financial) - parents run a business, that is successful (lots of work), but not a pot of money.  We never had much.  They were never eligible for help from the government, because what they made on paper was too much, even though it didn’t represent what they actually got to pocket at the end of the day.

The mantra seems to be, work hard and actually contribute to the success of the nation, you get nothing.  Do nothing and expect someone else to pick up after you, and you can have whatever you want.  It’s sickening, I agree.  I don’t object to people who genuinely need welfare because of circumstances - we should help our fellow man when he needs it.  But this situation of our government just ignoring the contributors and then sucking up to them for their vote when it matters - just how dumb do they think we are?

I know as a single with no kids, I’ll never get much from the govt, and that’s ok. It’s the now blatant ripping off they’ve decided to do that pisses me off.

I’m not big on this uncertainty and volatility - but bloody hell, it sure is amusing…

AdamC says:

10:56am | 07/03/11

Elphaba, this reminds me of Christine Milne’s article on the same topic last week in the Punch. You see the name of the writer, you see the headline and you can write a better article in your own head than the one that’s on the page. We know what ‘Giddy’ Ged is going to say, so why read it? It’s not like the writing’s at all jazzy.

The Punch needs more articles from commentators and writers and less from humourless activists with such well-defined and obvious agendae.

Elphaba says:

11:27am | 07/03/11

@AdamC, very true.  I think some effort has been made to disguise the true nature of the article with the title, but a few lines in, all is revealed.

However, this week-on-week of some berk defending the carbon tax and then the majority of Punchers howling them down is amusing.

I’ve used ‘berk’ AND ‘numpty’ today, lol

Bev says:

11:33am | 07/03/11

If this tax gets up the government will NOT index the compensation.
Meaning in a few years it will be worth nothing as inflation bites!
Its what ALL governments do.  Unless its indexed it will be just an election bribe.

C1 says:

12:27pm | 07/03/11

Doc Bud,

You have summarised this perfectly.

If I hear the phrase “Those who can afford to pay more” i will freak.

Robbo says:

04:14pm | 07/03/11

After all these taxes make us all ‘low-income households’ who will be left to foot the bill?  Will there be any high income earners left or will they be increasingly taxed until they too have to be compensated to put food on the table??

Blind Freddy says:

03:33pm | 07/03/11

Good comment on the type of bloggers who frequent this website and nothing else- you all just go on agreeing with each other, while the rest of us get on with the real work.

Blind Freddy says:

03:34pm | 07/03/11

Good comment on the type of bloggers who frequent this website and nothing else- you all just go on agreeing with each other, while the rest of us get on with the real work.

Joel B1 says:

10:43am | 07/03/11

I didn’t get past “foaming at the mouth”.

What a waste of electricity publishing this idiotic and childish rant of a story.

simon says:

10:32am | 07/03/11

Yes but the plan is to only reimburse low income households for direct energy costs. This does not include the increase in all goods due to the flow on effect. Basically all households will feel this tax burden especially middle to high income earners. Basically it is a wealth distribution tax. Labor are despicable.

Samuel says:

10:34am | 07/03/11

Firstly, who is hating? Or in your world does ‘disagreeing’ = hating? Secondly, I haven’t seen the phrase ‘great big new tax’ anywhere in these comments.

Thirdly, of course China and India spend more on clean energy. Not sure if you’ve heard of this thing called ‘population’. When a country has a large ‘population’ you often find they spend more money on things. The real question is how much money they’re investing in coal powered technology.

danny says:

02:40pm | 07/03/11

Obviously Ian you are young; the problem being is- being young its what you dont know that is really the worry.
If iwas your ol man I would take you outback to the woodshed for embarresing the family name with your stated ignorance.
Oh best of luck with your future with these slavish parroted views.

OMG says:

02:12pm | 07/03/11

HAHAHAHAHA
Obob looks out the window and says, it’s raining today.
24 billion dollars and a link to Bolt
Well done.
O

Mayday says:

03:44pm | 07/03/11

We have a desal plant in Sydney now and the water is cloudy and greasy.

The long range weather experts said that we were going into a La Nina and what got me was they DIDN’T LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE but when it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change they listen and quote the “scientists/experts”?! 

Selective expertism!!!

Mattb says:

07:00pm | 07/03/11

Or we could waste billions of tax payers dollars, giving it to the countries biggest polluters in the hope that they’ll spend it wisely like the wacko liberals want to do.

Worth it???.....

Simone says:

03:57pm | 07/03/11

This comment is biased towards not having a carbon price. A carbon price is the initial step in preparing the nation to lower emissions. With the introduction of a carbon tax, Australia will be well placed to participate in a world economy that will surely adopt a carbon price and it is fitting that Australia take the lead on this, as it is the biggest polluter per capita.
Carbon is naturally released into the atmosphere, but these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. About 3% of annual natural emissions are sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of these natural sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present; its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels. So as you can see, 3% can quickly add up and become a very big percentage over time. It is not disputed that increase carbon in the atmosphere leads to increased warming and increased climatic events.

Gregg says:

10:46am | 07/03/11

Very simple answers eddie.
1. The planet has been evolving for many thousands of years, mankind with it, a massive population explosion with the advent of industrialisation and all of modern concepts that it has produced.
One of those was transportation not relying on wind, animals, swimming or pedalling and thus oil and all its uses came into being.
Most of what I, some of my ancestors and all descendants enjoy uses some extent of oil, be it in fuel, lubrication or manufactured products.
Unfortunately, like most resources there are limits to its availability and as we already develop some synthetic oils or alternates, that and recycling will develop with continued evolution, the challenges your grandchildren will face being different to those my grandparents faced.

2. The planet has many more people on it now than what it had even 100 years ago and you can look at lifestyles in more populous countries to what exists in Australia to get an idea of how things develop on the planet, one of the big impacts in various regions being climate, Australia having much of its land mass as being very arid and known as the driest continent though variations can also see times of enormous flooding rains.
The irregularity of rainfall does however mean that Australia does face different issues with what level of population can be supported as against more populous countries.

So what else it about the planet that you are getting signals into your implant that you want to test with your old grandpa who just has his plain old mind and old Mr Google to rely on.
Do you want to hear again that story about how we had to get up to go and change the TV station and we only had two!

Samuel says:

10:47am | 07/03/11

1. We’ll have started to run out of oil, I guess. Better make the most of it and go on a trip to Europe.

2. “Hey little grandkid, did you know the planet used to be spectacular, with green mountain ranges and blue oceans. Animals lived freely amongst the forests and never went extinct. We never had cyclones or floods, bushfires or earthquakes. It was all perfect. Then nasty humans came along and they brought floods and storms and fires and killed all of the animals. So remember, young fellow, whenever anything bad happens, it’s your fault because you exist.”

Thommo the Enlightened says:

10:50am | 07/03/11

We’ll adapt - as always. Obviously something the ecotards and watermelons can’t unerstand. Oh that’s right they are malthusian misanthropes who hate humans anyway.

Joel B1 says:

10:51am | 07/03/11

eddie, your name calling is puerile.

You do know that “rightard” is a combination of “right” and “retard” do you?

And it’s been a few years since it was OK to call people with mental disability’s “retards” hasn’t it?

How very, very childish. Do us a favour and grow up.

Dash says:

11:06am | 07/03/11

eddie, this policy is about redistributing wealth, it’s not about saving the planet! People are arguing about how this is being done, not about the need to find alternative sources of energy. Wake up mate. This is socialism gone mad. It compensates people on the basis of income not on how much they pollute!

Middle Australia are very concerned about what is happening and rightly so. The need for action or otherwise on climate change is not the issue here. It’s the way it’s being done!

Richard says:

11:32am | 07/03/11

1. Human ingenuity will triumph and deliver a whole new solution to the problem that hasn’t even been dreamt of yet.
2. They will find solutions to their problems and deal with them as they need to.

Look, no one said that being alive was easy, that there were no challenges, of course their are. But right now our challenge is not climate change, the climate is quite benign (except in the Northern Hemisphere where it was faaar too cold, they could have done with a bit of global warming). There have always been floods and cyclones and droughts and fires, there always will be.

That said there will always be change as well. The atmosphere and the biosphere are not mechanistic, they are dynamic, they are in flux, they will change. Its up to us to deal with the changes that affect us and up to our grand children to deal with the changes that affect them.

I just hate your negativity eddie. How ‘bout a bit of optimism hey? Everything is going to be alright. The human race is adaptable and intelligent, and hardy, like cockroaches. We will survive. The planet will survive. Don’t let the Greens Massive Big Scare Campaign get you down guy!

BarbaraT says:

12:26pm | 07/03/11

Firstly we are not about to run out of oil in the foreseeable future.  The peak in oil production does not signify ‘running out of oil’, but it does mean the end of cheap oil, as we switch from a buyers’ to a sellers’ market.  Oil companies have, naturally enough, extracted the easier-to-reach, cheap oil first. The oil pumped first was on land, near the surface, under pressure, light and ‘sweet’ (meaning low sulphur content) and therefore easy to refine. The remaining oil is off-shore, far from markets, and of lesser quality and in fairly large reserves. It takes ever more money and energy to extract, refine and transport, the rate of production inevitably drops.  A recent report has shown new reserves in the US and Canada to have at least 150 years of reserves at current consumption rates.  This doesn’t include new reserves discovered in Russia and South America.  Problem is that US legislators have locked these reserves up from further exploration and development, and Russia has done likewise.  As for your grandchildren; oil will still play a big part in their lives into the foreseeable future.

AnthonyG says:

12:44pm | 07/03/11

Do you believe in Santa as well. Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

neil says:

01:56pm | 07/03/11

Well Eddie,

1. Long before we run out of oil we will be mass producing cheap synthetic substitutes in factories, it’s already started.

2. Tell them that very selfish people had too many grandchildren and depleted our resources through over population

The Badger says:

02:04pm | 07/03/11

Just out of curiosity neil
What do you think the cheap synthetic substances will be made out of?
Carbon Dioxide would be nice, there will be plenty of that about.

Greg says:

03:10pm | 07/03/11

Badger, OMG you really do have no idea! Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, is a relatively minor greenhouse gas, and is essential to life.

Here is a piece of science from the US:

For the last two decades, we have been bombarded with the claim that carbon dioxide, a minor greenhouse gas, is going to cause the planet to heat up, the polar ice to melt, the sea level to rise, tropical diseases to become rampant, and cyclones to intensify and become more numerous.  Virtually any problem, including record snowfalls, has been left on the doorstep of this supposedly evil gas.

Water vapor is by far the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect, accounting for about 95 percent of the total amount of greenhouse gases. (Does that make water vapor a far more dangerous “pollutant” than carbon dioxide that will need to be dealt with later?)  Ignoring minor greenhouse gases that comprise less than 1 percent of the total, carbon dioxide makes up the remaining 5 percent. But how much of this carbon dioxide is anthropogenic — that is, caused by man’s activities?  About 3.2 percent.

We are told again and again that burning coal, driving cars, breathing, and other carbon-dioxide- producing activities are going to bring us to some “tipping point” where the total greenhouse-gas “pollution” becomes too great for the planet to survive. Yet, as already stated, only 3.2 percent of the 5 perceent contribution of carbon dioxide to the total amount of greenhouse gases is caused by man. That is less than 0.2 percent of the total amount of greenhouse gases. What this means is that even a doubling of the amount of manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in an overall increase of only 0.4 percent in the total amount of greenhouse gases. Yet we are supposed to believe that a such a tiny increase is going to cause global warming leading to the death of civilization as we know it.

What is the evidence given to show this relationship between a rise in carbon dioxide and the rise in global temperatures that began in the mid-1800s and continues sporadically until today?  First, carbon dioxide has increased; and second, there has been a warming trend. Therefore, carbon dioxide has caused global warming. However, by this same logic you can prove that ice cream is a major cause of drowning deaths as there is a direct correlation between the two.  (Hint:  More people both swim and eat ice cream during summer months when the temperature goes up.)

A closer look at the evidence shows this to be nonsense. The primary period of temperature rise in the 20th century was between 1900 and 1940 while the rapid rise in carbon dioxide didn’t begin until the ‘40s. As carbon dioxide continued to rise in the ‘70s, the temperature decreased, causing many scientists to worry about the beginning of a new ice age.  Similarly, over the last 10 years there has been no warming trend, and in the last two years a cooling trend is evidenced by satellite temperature data.

Carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor is it causing global warming. In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide is known to have driven the rise in agricultural efficiency worldwide and accelerate the growth of forests. The carbon dioxide “enemy” is a convenient lie to give control of energy to governments at all levels, including a world government. With control of energy comes control of the entire economy and control of our personal activities. What more could a dictatorship want.

neil says:

03:30pm | 07/03/11

Badger,

The cheapest way to do it is the gas (methane) to liquid process there are many plants doing this today as the USAF wants to move to 30% synthetic by 2020, you can also crack coal to liquid. After we have used the estimated 500 years of methane and coal resources you can can manufacture methane from just about any bio substance.

It became more economical to produce synthetic oil lubricants 30 years ago, today synthetic petrol/avgas/diesel costs the equivalent of about $30/bbl of crude oil, giant plants are being set up all over the planet right now.

The Badger says:

04:03pm | 07/03/11

greg
Check my post to which you are responding.
I didn’t say carbon dioxide was a pollutant.
Didn’t read past you initial observation.

Dash says:

04:42pm | 07/03/11

Badger, Greg’s post is a cracker. You might learn something read further! It at least raises some very good questions. Also, why would you refer to Co2 in this context if you weren’t deamonising it??

The Badger says:

05:05pm | 07/03/11

Neil
What happens to the carbon dioxide released when you create a synthetic from a fossil fuel? For example when you crack coal to liquid?
Conversion ratios for CTL (Coal-to-Liquids) are generally estimated to be between 1-2 barrels/ton coal. This puts a strict limitation on future CTL capacity imposed by future coal production volumes, regardless of other factors such as economics, emissions or environmental concern. Assuming that 10% of world coal production can be diverted to CTL, the contribution to liquid fuel supply will be limited to only a few Mb/d. This prevents CTL from becoming a viable mitigation plan for liquid fuel shortage on a global scale.
If there is a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions per energy unit generated and given that Australia is very rich in coal reserves, I can agree that the creation of synthetics may be part of our energy future.
What you seem to be overlooking is that investing carbon tax dollars in the research and development of this and other renewable and transformative non-renewable alternate technologies can speed up the time to market and provide new employment opportunities. This is one of the reasons why a carbon tax is of benefit to the nation.

neil says:

06:36pm | 07/03/11

Badger
I’m not in the CO2 is the main problem camp, it’s a factor but there are too many unknowns to declare it the prime suspect. I personally believe it comes about forth after solar activity, Milankovitch cycles and natural variation. That aside as you alluded to we can actually make methane from CO2 and H2O with the help of Cyanobacteria and sunlight. Cyanobacteria photosynthesise CO2 and H2O into and carbohydrates. Some species however when deprived of oxygen will sythesise it into CH4. There is a pilot plant doing this at the much maligned Hazelwood power station.

We can also sythesise methane from base elements in factories using electricity, then convert it to liquid and it is still a lot cheaper than the $106/bbl than oil hit today, there is no shortage of H and C to make HC’s.

The US has decided to drive the post oil economy down the synthetic path simply by converting it’s military to these fuels as it is the biggest single user of liquid fuels on the planet, if we don’t go with them we will be picking up the scraps with solar and wind.

Joe says:

04:38pm | 07/03/11

Your first two paragraphs are what we should all be discussing.
The first question which must be asked of Australians is “Do you believe that man is responsable for climate change”.
If the answer is no then all talk of a carbon tax should be scrapped. If the answer is yes then we, as a nation, must look at how to deal with it.
Either way the government must have a mandated from the public.

Joel B1 says:

10:54am | 07/03/11

Not to mention the IPCCs own statement that there exist “vast quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons”.

Easier and a lot nicer than those ULF syndrome producing wind turbines.

Ian Freely says:

11:33am | 07/03/11

Love the reference to something that is nearly 3 years old. Way to go with that! Keep up the misinformation from someone who has no qualifications in science other than to say that scientists don’t know anything.

You must really love the smog in our cities.

iansand says:

12:46pm | 07/03/11

I wonder if Mr Bolt left out the words “economically exploitable”?  I suspect he might have.  It is pretty obvious that as oil becomes more expensive the economically exploitable reserves increse.  3 decades ago deep water drilling, for example, was ridiculously expensive.  It isn’t now.  That is, in part, due to improved techniques and in part to the fact that you can get more bucks for your barrel.

I’m pretty sure that this process will continue.  As oil gets more expensive it will become economic to exploit more marginal resources.  However, as oil gets more expensive renewables get cheaper.  I think that being on the correct side of those curves is a good plan.

neil says:

03:49pm | 07/03/11

I suspect Bolts numbers are on the very optimistic side but some oil fields do replenish. Oil comes from decomposed plankton that are initially solid eventually decomposing into liquid then float up through the water table, if it gets caught in an appropriate geo structure it becomes an oil deposit if not it gets to the surface evaporates and becomes a tar pit.

When we find a deposit and drill it we reduce the pressure and allow more oil to seep up to replenish it. But ultimately it is still a finite resource there’s just a bit more there than we initially realised.

fairsfair says:

11:59am | 07/03/11

1 2 3 4, Hi5!

4 eyes says:

01:10pm | 07/03/11

What does the price of glasses have to do with a carbon tax?
NO is the answer, now what was the question?

TimB says:

03:31pm | 07/03/11

Poor Badger. Looks like someone’s going to have to explain it to you.

Sound it out. With the Australian dollar you will be able to “Bi” (Buy) “Foc” (figure this one out yourself) “al” (all).

Something to do with heavy inflation caused by economy destroying taxes.

Samuel says:

04:37pm | 07/03/11

Yes, the unhinging. Also known as an ‘opinion’. Though I understand lefties don’t like opinions much when they are contrary to their own. Much easier to just call it unhinged.

Aasq says:

12:30am | 08/03/11

The right wing wouldn’t be the right wing if they did, Samuel. An “opinion” like this, you mean ?

Which one of Possum’s predictions doesn’t describe exactly what’s occurred over the last 6 months, by the way ?

MarK says:

08:19pm | 07/03/11

“So I’ve just read here that man made carbon dioxide accounts for just 0.2 percent of total green house gases! And that the world has cooled over the last two years and also cooled during the 70s when carbon dioxide was on the increase. Is that all correct? “

Yep

“Because if that’s right, what the hell are the government doing? “

They are redistributing wealth and using AGW to hide like cowards

“Sounds like they’re just using the environment as an excuse to raise a new tax and control what we do and don’t consume! They want to take money from one section of the community and hand it to another.”

Welcome to government Labor style.

“I don’t trust this government or the greens when it comes to tax!”

Sing it brother

“Is anyone else sceptical or are we all just believing what we’re told? And what does the head of the ACTU know? “

Lots are. Lots and lots.

And not much except Ged thinks is a really time to begin a bargaining war with the government. See Ged really doesn’t give a stuff about the working man or woman because if she did she would oppose this job destroying monstrosity.

As it is it presents 2 opportunities for her.

1. Finally support a desperate Labor position with Union backing after she gets the seat she wants.

2. Bargain like mad to screw every cent and perk she can for her dwindling membership to further exacerbate the strain on the economy.

Either way it is a win for Ged.  Awesome opportunity. And she has the power. Gillard needs her like Sheen needs crack and hookers.

Should be fun to watch.

FelicityC says:

04:54pm | 07/03/11

JT - Newspoll is the only poll that has consistently proved accurate sweetie so although I dont hang on Joolias every word I would suggest you wait before popping your cork.

The Badger says:

05:07pm | 07/03/11

JT
You can say anything you want today and every other day for the next 2 and a half years.
Keep us posted, will you?

TimB says:

05:14pm | 07/03/11

Felicity, like JT says, Essential polls usually favor Labor. It’s safe to say this is the “best case scenario”

I’m guessing Newspoll will paint an even worse picture for Labor.