The Labor Government’s carbon pricing plans have come under fire again, with polls showing most Australians think they’ll be losing out - but does the Liberal Government have an alternative plan? Last night Q and A showed a clip of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott convincingly arguing that a carbon tax could work… Here, Amanda Rishworth casts her eye over Tony Abbott’s Direct Action Plan.

Get more of Jon Kudelka's gold at www.kudelka.com.au

In recent weeks Tony Abbott has stepped up his hysterical tour of dry cleaning services, cereal factories, fish markets and even nappy factories to tout the potential increase in cost of living pressures under a carbon price. However, during these visits he pointedly avoids making any mention of his own climate change policy - a policy which Professor Ross Garnaut has said in his recent report will cost more and do less.

Tony Abbott continues to mount his fear campaign about the Government’s plan to price carbon in the Parliament, and yet you would be hard pressed to recall him ever mentioning his own plan.

A number of respected scientists from organisations including the CSIRO and the independent Climate Commission have challenged the scientific foundations of Mr Abbott’s Direct Action plan, stating that it would be insufficient to bring about the long-term reduction in carbon pollution needed to effectively tackle climate change.

Indeed it has been exposed that because Tony Abbott’s Direct Action plan is so environmentally ineffective, it will deliver just a quarter of the carbon pollution abatement required to meet the bipartisan 5 per cent reduction target. As a result, in order to meet the target the Coalition will need to spend an extra $20 billion on purchasing international permits - money that will subsidise abatement programs and green industries in other countries rather than our own.

It is clear that Mr Abbott’s Direct Action policy will actually cost over $30 billion rather than the claimed $10.5 billion, and he has failed to indicate where this $30 billion will come from. It’s time that Mr Abbott came clean about how he will fund his environmentally inefficient and costly Direct Action plan.

Given Mr Abbott’s silence on this crucial point, we can only assume that his plan will be funded directly by Australian taxpayers. Figures reveal that under Mr Abbott’s plan the average Australian family’s tax bill will increase by $720 every year. Unlike the Government, at no point has Mr Abbott committed to providing householders with any form of assistance for this added pressure on their budget.

While Mr Abbott huffs and puffs about the potential for a carbon price to contribute to cost of living pressures he is very quiet about the fact that his plan will directly tax Australian workers without providing any form of financial assistance for those who are already doing it tough.

You might understandably be left wondering why it is that Mr Abbott continues to stand behind such an environmentally inefficient and costly policy. Perhaps it is as Malcolm Turnbull says - that the Direct Action policy is easy to wind back and the sort of plan you put in place when you never truly intend to implement a plan for tackling climate change.

But if Mr Abbott really does believe in taking action on climate change, he should stand up and debate the merits of his own plan. If Tony Abbott wants to be taken seriously, he needs to start arguing for his own plan for tackling climate change instead of hiding behind an unconvincing scare campaign. 

But then again maybe Mr Abbott is finding it all a little too hard to come up with arguments in support of his own Direct Action plan.

Visit Jon Kudelka’s website for more cartoons.

225 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:36am | 07/06/11

      “Tony Abbott continues to mount his fear campaign ...”

      And the Government continues to mount its own fear campaign - that without the carbon tax The world Will End!

      I can’t abide the sheer hypocrisy of those who accuse the Opposition of running a “fear campaign”, when their own policy is based on the biggest fear campaign of all. If you have to be that dishonest to sell your plan, it doesn’t say much about the quality of the plan.

    • Unionist says:

      06:53am | 07/06/11

      Nice to see you’re a snivelling denier too there Ericka. Except one argument is somewhat more weighted in scare and smear and it isn’t the current governments. And there for a moment I thought at least you had some intelligence on the matter, nope just another stupid bogan poster with drivel on its chin.

    • nihonin says:

      07:56am | 07/06/11

      Nice to see you Unionist, waving the placard of ‘Yes I say Yes to taxing me more for fear and guilt’, only thing you really had to say was ‘Denier’.  Then again can’t expect much more from the ‘deniers’ of the fact, most Australians now see the Carbon Tax for what it truly is.

    • David C says:

      08:46am | 07/06/11

      Unionist are we now at the stage that if you dont agree the world will end that you are a denier? How did we get to that point?
      I agree that we face issues and we will have to adapt to the changes ahead but end of the world?? Is that the view of any sane person?

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:06am | 07/06/11

      Typical unionist, the only tactic they know is that of the thug, name calling and intimidation totally bereft of any logical argument. Why don’t you go back to punching holes in sheet metal or something intelligent before your union bosses send your job to china. Better still why don’t you go to china, your communist brethren need some unions, they don’t seem to have any…

    • Denny Crane says:

      09:21am | 07/06/11

      Amanda, i like that you say on Q&A, the unabashed tv show for greens and labor.

      Explain to me how this carbon tax will work, how Australia is going to save the world, if no other country joins up, how we are so far down the pecking list of countries.

      Explain to me that only 1st world countries get penalised, and that a develpoing country wont.

      Explain to me that Greece who is developed wont sign up, and if they did they would go belly up.

      Explain to me how any tax i pay, i will see every cent back and i will not be ONE cent worse off.

      guarantee no job losses.

      Explain to me why your leader LIED to the public by saying i wont lead a government that has a carbon TAX

    • persephone says:

      09:52am | 07/06/11

      Um, given that the Liberals have a policy to tackle climate change, doesn’t that mean that they’re also part of the ‘scare campaign’ Erick’s talking about?

      It’s not as if Abbott and team are going around telling us it’s all OK, climate change isn’t happening….

    • Barry says:

      10:08am | 07/06/11

      “A number of respected scientists from organisations including the CSIRO and the independent Climate Commission have challenged the scientific foundations of Mr Abbott’s Direct Action plan, stating that it would be insufficient to bring about the long-term reduction in carbon pollution needed to effectively tackle climate change.”

      Yes, they would think that.  The problem is that if you asked any informed CSRIO scientist they would also tell you that neither will the carbon tax effectively tackle climate change.  This is simply because Australia’s total carbon output is miniscule compared to countries such as China, and America.  Per person it is quite high, and I’m all for reducing this, but change in climate will only occur, due to the larger countries.

      @Unionist
      There is much more chance of the carbon tax affecting people’s pockets, then there is of the carbon tax doing anything to mitigate climate change.  Yes, scare tactics are used by both parties, but one is based partly upon reality, the other is unrealistic.  Sure, the generations to come might live in a very different world negatively effected by climate change.  The government’s statements that the only way to stop this is to put in a carbon tax though is absolutely void of factual evidence.  The world relies on the bigger countries to have any hope of mitigating climate change.  The decision for a carbon tax should have always been based upon an economic decision to keep up with other countries implementing similar concepts.  It was pure unfactual scare tactic to try and push this carbon tax through under the idea that if we don’t the generations of this country to come will suffer greatly due to climate change.  I repeat it will do NOTHING to mitigate climate change.  The question is though will the carbon tax hurt your back pocket?  A number of experts have stated that it probably will.  So who is using unrealistic scare tactics, and who is using realistic scare tactics?  I know the answer.

    • nihonin says:

      10:10am | 07/06/11

      @ persephone, true he does, but Tony and the LIberals aren’t running around manipulating people with “the sky will fall, the sky will fall, if we don’t apply a tax”.

    • persephone says:

      10:24am | 07/06/11

      nilhonin

      neither is anyone else; all they’re doing is pointing to the science.

      (It reminds me of Gareth Evan’s quote….“We’re not scaremongering. It’s not our fault if the facts are scary.”)

      I’m interested in this accusation of scare mongering - it suggests that ‘deniers’ are afraid to admit the truth.

      Face up to it - it’s not as scary as you think.

    • Sherlock says:

      10:38am | 07/06/11

      persephone says: Um, given that the Liberals have a policy to tackle climate change, doesn’t that mean that they’re also part of the ‘scare campaign’ Erick’s talking about?

      Well the problem with your statement there persephone is that the Labor government also has no plans to tackle climate change. All they have is a plan for a tax that won’t do a single thing to mitigate any possible effects of climate change.

      Both plans are just as dumb as each other and only there to mollify the ever dwindling band of climate change believers.

    • persephone says:

      10:52am | 07/06/11

      Sherlock

      well, we’re going to end up with one or the other.

      Given that Labor’s is supported by scientists and economists as being the cheapest and most effective, wouldn’t it be wise to go with the experts?

    • nihonin says:

      11:36am | 07/06/11

      persephone

      It’s also the fact that people who support the tax, won’t actually debate with the people who don’t and explain how it will ‘actually’ make any real world difference.  When you consider some countries/states that do have a Tax in place are either looking at winding it back or dumping it.

      As for (It reminds me of Gareth Evan’s quote….“We’re not scaremongering. It’s not our fault if the facts are scary.”), sounds like he’s talking about a bedtime story the way he described it.

      I’s only scary when you can’t convince people and know it, so you have to pull the old rabbit out of the hat trick, it’s big, it’s mean and it’s scary.

    • acotrel says:

      11:53am | 07/06/11

      @Barry
      ‘The problem is that if you asked any informed CSRIO scientist they would also tell you that neither will the carbon tax effectively tackle climate change. ’ 
      So you don’t believe that now is a good time to make a start at implementing a few alternative energy research projects, so we can become less dependent on fossil fuels?

    • George Gershwin says:

      12:03pm | 07/06/11

      “Let’s call the whole thing off!!”

    • persephone says:

      12:52pm | 07/06/11

      nilhonen

      given the hundreds of posts I’ve written explaining and debating the carbon price, you can scarcely aim that accusation at me.

      The fact of the matter is, the debate as to whether or not we should act is well and truly over. Has been for years.

      Both parties are committed to action; the only party I know of which isn’t is Katter’s.

      By the next election, a carbon price will be well and truly up and running.

      To be still debating the science is to miss the boat.

      Happy to answer any questions you have on the carbon price and have made that amply clear to everyone who pays even a passing interest in this blog all along.

    • luke says:

      01:10pm | 07/06/11

      Erick, the fact we only emit 1.4% of the world’s carbon emissions is proof enough that we don’t need a carbon tax to save the world. The fact’s that say we are doomed is not at all scary, we just have to face reality that man cannot stop, alter or manipulate climate change. The only scary bit is the carbon tax believers think they can alter climate change and the really scary bit is they are in government.

    • persephone says:

      01:36pm | 07/06/11

      luke

      and apparently the alternative government thinks it can do exactly the same thing.

    • nihonin says:

      01:54pm | 07/06/11

      persphone says ‘To be still debating the science is to miss the boat’, point is, we won’t miss any boat, if we actually don’t bring in a Carbon Tax.  Besides even if the debate takes a couple of years (which it wouldn’t), mans contribution (3% of CO2) isn’t going to make that much difference as it hasn’t since the start of the industrial age to the present.

      Seems the people who actually want it, benefit the most and yes I do mean financially.

    • stevem says:

      02:07pm | 07/06/11

      acotrel, You ask:
      So you don’t believe that now is a good time to make a start at implementing a few alternative energy research projects, so we can become less dependent on fossil fuels?

      This would lower carbon emissions and help the economy prepare for “Peak Oil”, both good things. Taxing 1000 companies and divvying up the spoils the in way that seems to be proposed is NOT going to achieve this.

      If we’re going to put a price on burning carbon then it should address your point, it should be equitable and it shouldn’t disadvantage Australian companies trying to compete against companies in countries with no price on carbon. Only when these goals can be met should we establish a price on carbon.

    • luke says:

      02:10pm | 07/06/11

      persephone, a good point. but do actually believe the carbon tax is going to save the planet. Yes or no?

    • persephone says:

      02:49pm | 07/06/11

      luke

      the planet’ll be fine.

      It’s human beings I worry about.

    • luke says:

      03:00pm | 07/06/11

      persephone, a good point. I don’t believe anything let alone a carbon tax can alter climate change, especially when nature emits more greenhouse gases than humans. Do you actually believe the carbon tax is going to save the planet. Yes or no?

    • acotrel says:

      08:03pm | 07/06/11

      @stevem There is provision in the free market which compensates for the price on carbon.  Why is it that the conserva tives were totally unconcerned about the competitiveness of Australian industry, when they were flogging the neoliberal ideology? What has changed?

    • jb says:

      06:22am | 07/06/11

      Hey Mandy your article is bordering plagersim, haven’t we read this same blablabla already on Punch in the past week.
      If you can’t come up with anything new how abouts you just give it a rest.
      oh and hey, while you are at it Mandy how about getting away from Tony and pledge your allegiance to your lash Juliar the Mugger.
      So please answer this, do you think it’s okay for her and the inept minister for immigration to send young girls unaccompanied off to malaysia with the real threat of abuse and do you think it’s okay for Juliar the mugger and her swan to steal from us under the guise of a carbon tax to pay for their budget shortcomings?
      I mean she has openly admitted the excess will go to no green related infrastructure.
      No one denies we need to look after our planet but the way these guys are going about is is downright deceitful lies and more lies the sky is falling policy comes from the greens and labor not from the libs.

    • Unionist says:

      06:59am | 07/06/11

      jb says:06:22am; commies like you love to shut down peoples POV, usually it’s because they’re shit scared of the facts and run away like squealing pigs. You must be a really angry little it eh’

    • jb says:

      07:33am | 07/06/11

      @unionist sorry but UI have no idea what you are saying did one have too few many breakfast bongs this morning???
      Answer the questions and I shall give you the dignity but I suspect you are running on blind vitriol. your only chance is to dump your lash the Mugger and her swan and bring in Stephen smith he looks like a guy worth voting for and to be honest I wish he were in the Libs camp, upfront, intelligent and honest, doesn’t really fit with you guys does he.
      Hey Unionist after you come down from them bongs and hit the pub after lunch please give it a go and answer the questions I submitted for Mandy, doubt she will get around to them… still searching for where I am a commie but perhaps you could answer that part too hey? I f you are looking for me I’m the guy strolling away, oh was that you who just ran past?

    • nihonin says:

      08:12am | 07/06/11

      @ Unionist, still more of the same I see.  Nothing to offer other than insults, must be all Tax Tax Me fanbois have now. I myself do believe in climate change (its was sunny when I woke this morning and now its raining, but in all seriousness, I don’t thin ka tax will help, but real action will.

    • Coop says:

      04:30pm | 07/06/11

      Nice to see you back abusing all and sundry Rob Charteris (Unionist).

      I see the break hasnt made you any more tolerant or intelligent.

      Snivelling unionist pig

    • B says:

      07:56pm | 07/06/11

      @ Unionist.  I suggest you and your party and the Left take a good hard long look in the Mirror.  Because your the communists/socialists.  It has been this way for 40 years and more.

    • Dash says:

      06:49am | 07/06/11

      Am I the only one who is sick of the government using taxpayers money to fund propaganda campaigns and to get hand picked committees to produce reports to tell us what they want us to hear? Yesterday a Treasury report came out to tell us were all going to be better off financially in 10 years because the ALP is going to tax us! What a surprise! The government hasn’t even released a price! Yet treasury can tell us we’ll be better off because of the ALPs revenue raising exercise? WTF?

      We were promised a Citizens assembly and now we have a committee where every member is aligned to the ALP. And we have an ACTU leader who’s suddenly dressed up as a climate change expert! And we pay Gillards mates to produce so called expert reports for the ALP to wave around in the media. And the Australian taxpayer is footing the bill!

      The ALP stripped 2billion away from Australian families yet can find money in the budget to fund their propaganda on the carbon tax!

      Fact is, it will not change average global temperaures by a single degree. The science proves that. And the coal we are going to sell to China in increasing quantities will do much more harm than any benefit from this policy. How, armed with those facts can this be about the environment? It is nohing more than a deceitful revenue grab at the expense of Middle and High income Australia!

      Cut through Swans bullshit today and let’s see if he comes clean on the details about price and the socialist compensation package. I’m sick of paying for these deceitful morons to try ro sell me lies!

      If the ALP had an ounce of decency they’d call an election!

    • Tom says:

      10:07am | 07/06/11

      Dash, “.. let’s see if he comes clean on the details about price ...”, I hope you have a comfortable chair to sit in while you are waiting for “details”. This is Labor-world “whatever it takes” is their motto.
      “election” try 2014.
      “decency”? try 2041.

    • Michael says:

      12:22pm | 07/06/11

      @ Acotrel, i don’t know… you will have to ask one. smile

    • acotrel says:

      08:05pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash You forgot to mention the communists this tiime?

    • Crap Filter says:

      07:07am | 07/06/11

      Speaking of hypocrisy,
      “without the carbon tax The world Will End”
      Well, that’s not right.

      It’s simply not right.  You’ll not find that, or qanything like it, anywhere in Labor responses to global warming, emission reduction or carbon pricing.

      If we let man-made warming continue to rise, and by more than +2 degrees by 2050, we’re looking at a rising tide of needless expense and misery around the world for rich and poor.

      And if we do nothing at all, steadly getting worse until we have to look at something truly drastic, like climate engineering.

      We have a share of the problem, and we need a share in fixing it. If we do nothing on carbon pricing, we’ll soon find that other countries we export eg coal, iron, gas to will be charging us a carbon tax instead.

      “End of the world” eh. Nup. Not true. You wouldn’t need to cheat like that, if you had any sort of case at all.

    • jb says:

      07:56am | 07/06/11

      full of, you kinda flicked off on a tangent there.
      ‘we have to share the problem’
      you see that one simple line IS the problem , some pay some don’t.
      If you use too much carbon pay the damn fine relevant to the usage.
      Thats the problem hotshot, the discriminatory kick backs.
      It’s either one Australia buddy or it’s not!
      you tell me?

    • Crap Filter says:

      08:58am | 07/06/11

      Spare me. Couldn’t even get a simple quote right.
      “We have a share of the problem”. Already.

      Tackling the biggest part of the problem with a market price signal doesn’t suit? Meh.

    • Michael says:

      10:05am | 07/06/11

      Without a carbon tax the Labor gravy train will be derailed and swanny wont ever realise his utopia of a Labor gubment in surplus, it’s the end of the fantasy Labor world nothing more.

    • persephone says:

      10:29am | 07/06/11

      Michael

      Introducing a carbon price makes no difference to the timeline for achieving a budget surplus (in fact, as some money comes out of general revenue for purposes such as advertising, the budget would get back in surplus more easily without a carbon price).

      you’ve been told this before, so you can’t plead ignorance. Therefore you’re being deliberately misleading.

    • PTom says:

      10:32am | 07/06/11

      @jb
      “You see that one simple line IS the problem , some pay some don’t.
      If you use too much carbon pay the damn fine relevant to the usage.”

      Two things wrong with this
      1) Industry pays for carbon usage not you.
      2) What is wrong with user pay?  The more carbon the industry emits the more it pays. Just like you when you use electricity

    • Michael says:

      11:24am | 07/06/11

      I haven’t been told anything Pers’

      Actually just about anything under the sun can impact on the budget just watch a Swanny press release or interview it goes a bit like ” oh well no one could have forseen that one coming”  hmmm, not even the miners that were telling him his estimates were wrong to start with and would be more wrong under the super profits tax, it’s had so many names i can’t recall what was settled on mrrt? super tax? one of those.

      My personal favourite is ” well tony Abbot is a wrecker blah blah blah if it wasn’t for T.A. we would be in surplus, carbon neutral, not the laughing stock of the universe” it’s just getting old, no one is listening.

    • acotrel says:

      11:59am | 07/06/11

      @Michael Why do the conservatives rely on the gubermint to save their backsides every time the free market comes a gutser? The right wing of politics is dragging us back to the ‘command economy’ and interventist socialism,  with their stupidity!

    • Steve Frankes says:

      01:09pm | 07/06/11

      Ummm supply facts please… not theories about what crystal balls say about a +2 degree rise. Man-made warming is rubbish - period. A failed theory that has been trashed time and time again. There has not been one AGW alarm that has come true yet, not exactly a good record, but the real counter science has predictide 100% acurately on all the corresonding alarms. So before spruking your religeon on us please supply scientific facts.

    • B says:

      08:08pm | 07/06/11

      @Crap Filter

      I think you forgot a part of your name.  Full of Crap Filter.

    • Economist says:

      07:20am | 07/06/11

      So what if Tony Abbott proposed a carbon tax, lamenting on policy alternatives at the time of the CPRS. This is precisely the problem with 24 hour news cycle and the microscopic analysis of every word a politician utters. No one’s actually focusing on the policy mix to respond to the issue.

      But i’m sick of reading the Punch contributors with their ignorance and partisanship. Erick’s already off diverting/  hijacking the article with the Global warming is a lie argument. HMMMM. Conveniently ignoring the fact that both parties have a policy to tackle climate change. The world is tackling the issue and Australia needs to get on board. The debate over Climate change’s existence is effectively over.

      The direct action policy is simply laughable.as Amanda demonstrates. As for its ability to be wound back, well if the Liberals get in aren’t they going to wind the tax back?

      The effects of the Carbon tax, transition to Carbon trading are exaggerated. At a price on carbon of $26 it will raise 1/5 the revenue of the GST, and the GST was merely a blip (though the GST did replace a variety of sales taxes). Australia Institute modelling shows that after 10 years the tax will barely rate a mention. It will be charged on only 1000 polluters. The current Garnaut report highlights that the compensation package could result in a tax free threshold of $25000, a much needed reform regardless of whether the tax is implemented.

      Labor’s problem is that they announce what they’re going to do before they have their departments lined up to implement it. The Punch’s problem is once the pay wall goes up (based on their survey) are we going to want to pay to read the ramblings of the 15 or so individuals highlighted in Dash’s poem last Friday. Maybe, but it does become tiresome at times. More policy less politics please.

    • acotrel says:

      07:43am | 07/06/11

      @Economist Erick’s problem is that he knows that global warming is really due to all those hot women out there!

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:24am | 07/06/11

      You must be on the wrong site- you make too much sense. You know, using facts and logic.

    • Fiona says:

      09:11am | 07/06/11

      Agreed, agreed, agreed, particularly with the last sentence.

    • Dash says:

      09:13am | 07/06/11

      Economist - What I don’t understand is why Middle and High income Australia should pay the price? If this is about pollution, why is the government proposing to punish families on the basis of their income? I think that’s something the government is going to have trouble selling. You say that “only 1000 polluters” will be charged. But reality is, the costs will be passed on to consumers. And the government is proposing to only look after some of those consumers with hand outs!

      And should we even begin to discuss the impact of our coal in China? What’s the government doing about that because their consumption is increasing and it is having many multiple times more impact on Co2 emmissions than the benefit that will ever be delivered from this tax. It’s hypocritical.

      Garnaut is not a tax expert, why is the Australian tax payer paying him for tax advice? To me it just smells like the ALP using taxpayers money to pay people they choose, to tell us what they want us to hear. And isn’t it true that the tax proposal is only to allow access to that threshold up to $80,000? So families in Sydney get descriminated against as well. The top 10% of taxpayers already pay over 50% of the personal PAYG tax revenue. This will mean that they will pay an even greater portion, and have to foot the bill for the carbon price.

      I agree with you 100% on the need for tax reform in this country. But the ALP since winning office has been following a socialist tax agenda. They have removed the superannuation consessions, they propose to means test the Private Health Tax rebate after promising not to, they have introduced a flood levy which hits high income earners, they propose to introduce a carbon tax with a compensation mechnism which forces the cost onto middle and high income families and they introduced a profits tax aimed at taxing successful business for no reason other than they are making money. That is not root and branch tax reform Economist! You and I both know that. Go over to the greens web site. They propose higher personal tax and higher company tax. the ALP has fallen into line.

      This Carbon tax is not a market mechinism whilst the government descriminates against the population on the basis of income. It’s a devicive policy which splits our society into those not paying their way, and those paying too much! And it’s based on demographics and political lines.

      No one in their right mind would suggest we should not look after the environment. But I’m sorry, this policy is not about the environment.

      Labor has lots of problems. The biggest being credibility. They need to take this to an election because they have no mandate. Not only did they deliberately lie because they knew they couldn’t sell it, but the polls show quite clearly, they do not have the support of the people. Where’s the democracy in that?

    • Seano says:

      09:46am | 07/06/11

      I’m not particularly keen to pay for comment but if more was of this quality I’d definitely think about it.

      It is going to be a very different political landscape in two years time. Hopefully the punch will still be free because they will certainly be interesting times.

      I

    • Brad McT says:

      10:33am | 07/06/11

      Seano I’ve been reading your comments over the last few days and think you are a moron and an idiot.

    • Economist says:

      11:42am | 07/06/11

      @Dash, all respect to you and your passion. Like me you’ve got a lot to say and a lot of concerns and I’m no expert, just going with my gut.

      The fact is both Labor and Liberal policies are aimed at changing behaviour. I just have a preference for the price effect. I believe you’ve done an MBA and you’d remember that a price change has two effects, income and substitution. People will be compensated for the income effect. As you state costs will be passed onto the consumer, but if you change your behaviour you will pay less than someone who doesn’t. I honestly think the effects of this are being exaggerated. Job losses will be no worse then what’s been happening to Australian manufacturing for years.

      Trying to link the tax directly to a reduction in temperature as Australien does by channelling Nova, is misguided and a distraction from the issue, which is to prevent the likelihood of a 2 degree increase in temperatures. It’s not about reducing temperatures in the short-term. Wasn’t it Flannery that indicated it would take 1000s of years to reduce temperatures. 

      Labors problem is we still don’t have the detail after 6 months, because of the way they’ve gone about it. No doubt government departments are trying to madly pull something together on a complex issue. You’d have the department of Climate Change putting the policy together liaising with industry, experts, doing research on overseas trends and reactions. Treasury are modelling the policy, but it’s hard without the detail. Finance are costing it, the Prime Ministers department telling everyone to hurry up. Labor have made the problem worse for themselves, due to the way they’ve gone about it and the polls reflect this

      Seriously if the Liberals get in, they will eventually develop their own tax or trade model. The direct action policy will only be temporary. I’ll bet you now that by their second term they’d look to implement a similar scheme to Labors.

      As for China that’s China’s problem, when (you could argue if) the international community get their act together if China doesn’t address the issue they’ll be penalised, but claims they’re not taking action are false. They’ve announced by 2020 a cut in Co2 of 40-45% of 2005 GDP levels or about 1.5 billion tonnes. Domestically they are looking at the issue.

      Other countries and US state have taxes or trade systems we are not the first to do this.

    • Seano says:

      11:56am | 07/06/11

      Stunning contribution Brad.

      @Economist doesn’t seem to me likely that the carbon tax will be rolled back despite the rhetoric. How do they rollback the 25k no tax threshold?

    • Brad McT says:

      12:21pm | 07/06/11

      @Seano, you are a cheap arse not willing to pay for comment but happy to pay the effects of a carbon tax that will reduce CO two emissions by nothing.

      Your comments over the weekend paint you as a carbon tax expert but you can’t answer all the tough questions. Watching ATM and others break you down was entertaining.

      I think ATM broke your brain,
      Seano: seek help, seek help, seek help…......
      he short circuited your ALP infused one brain cell.

      Don’t bother replying unless you are willing to answer the tough questions, it just makes you look like a scared rabbit trying to run with the lions.

      And seek help about your broken brain Seano, dimwits like you make us all sick!

    • Dash says:

      12:22pm | 07/06/11

      Economist - that’s all fine. But you still haven’t answered my question on the nature of income descrimination and the fact that this is not a market mechinism.

      Get rid of the compensation package and you might have a plausible policy. Otherwise it’s an exercise in social wealth redistribution and any free market economist would be against that. I don’t see why certain demographics (many of which have smaller carbon footprints) deserve to be punished if this is truely about the environment.

      The point I’m making about China is that our coal is being sold in increasing quantities and will impact the environment more than any benefit, real or perceived, from this tax. It’s not Chinas issue, it’s the fact that the government is hypocritical.

      You’re right about the models and the rhetoric, but you need to be smarter and look through to the underlying issues here. I do not believe or trust this government because of their track record. And the more I hear about this, the more it smells very very bad.

      The ALPs issues are not just about the way they are managing it. It’s more fundamental than that. Firstly they lied and therefore do not have a mandate. Secondly, they did a deal with the greens, the details of which have not been made public. And Thirdly as I’ve said until I’m blue in the face, they are following a revenue raising exercise that will not impact the global environment and are making Middle and High income (predominantely in non-ALP demographics) earners bear the cost!

    • Seano says:

      01:01pm | 07/06/11

      All questions on that thread were answered by myself and others.

      Your personal attacks and delusional sock puppetry contribute nothing.

      @Dash - why is it that a conservative election win is a mandate (work choices) but a Labor win (however narrow) isn’t?

    • Dash says:

      01:28pm | 07/06/11

      @Seano - I don’t recall Howard deliberately misleading the Australian people 6 days out from an election. “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

      Correct me if i’m wrong Seano, but perhaps that was suggesting the ALPs agenda for the next term was different from their intention. Being elected on the basis of a lie is not really a good look now is it.

    • Economist says:

      01:47pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash, the discrimination you’re talking about is potentially only in relation to the compensation package. Again the detail is unknown, but if we have tax free threshold of $25000 and a change in the thresholds, i.e. make the 30% range 37% as proposed by some economists, you may be better off, but it will depend on what compensation also comes with the tax changes.

      You argue that it’s revenue raising but isn’t it meant to be budget neutral? You claim that the policy would be more effective without the compensation, but then it is no longer revenue neutral.

      It’s not a market mechanism yet. But it’s designed to effectively put a price on carbon for transition to trading scheme in the future. Again you seem to be ignoring the substitution effect to other goods. On the production side producers have an incentive to develop new energy sources to potentially get a larger market share.

      The devil is in the detail, lets wait for the 1st July, but once announced can I suggest you go over to the Australian to George Megalogenis for a critique, he’s by far the best at this.

    • Economist says:

      02:00pm | 07/06/11

      @Seano, my comment in relation to the Punch was not an attempt to be derogatory to them. As possibly a freemium site their job will be tough. Their policy of not shaping debate after posting an article, leaving it up to contributors to argue rather than joining in the fray, may hurt them. They are a victim to their contributors which can turn people off with the shouting matches as well as attract new readers.

      I have no idea how many page impressions unique browsers they attract compared with the Drum but no doubt Nielsen Netratings or Hitwise will provide them with the info and they’re aware of their market position.

      The difficulty will me maintaining a balance in that some of the sensitive souls on here take offense with Punch writers if they’re perceived as showing any political bias i.e. Farr, Penbo and Tory are regularly accused of this. If the pay wall goes up it will attract the “I’m going to cancel my subscription” response Blah Blah Blah.

      My suggestion if a pay wall goes up is to show the first few paragraphs of the articles available with a few comments published for free to attract new readers. To contribute you have to join, but I’m no journalist nor an expert on these things. Also pressure will need to be borne on the ABC to drop the Drum, bloody waste of tax payers money wink

    • Against the Man says:

      02:32pm | 07/06/11

      Oh Seano lets play true or false

      Seano said he wasn’t confused by the carbon tax - True
      Seano didn’t answer all questions asked by ZSRenn - True
      Seano doesn’t like to be challenged - True
      Seano got a beatdown on the Punch on Sunday - True
      Seano is on the run from the people who want him held accountable to his own arrogant statements - True

      Reminder link:
      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/13-eminent-plumbers-speak-out-on-the-carbon-tax/

      Sorry I broke your brain Seano, c’mon say those magic words to give us all a good laugh!

    • Seano says:

      03:03pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash - in a perfect world pollies would never lie. But such a world does not exist; after all you had to isolate Howard to only not telling a lie 6 days out from an election.

      Also such a world makes no allowance for changes in the situation or for just plain getting it wrong. Do you want a world where pollies are held to their word over everything they say and can never change their minds? Because I can guarantee you, barring the short term political advantage, Tony Abbott doesn’t.

      I think it’s important for pollies to honestly tell us what they believe, think but also for voters to be open to that changing if they can give good reason. As both parties support action on climate change that would seem to be one good reason to not leave action until another two years plus down the track.

      @Economist - I didn’t think you were being derogatory towards the Punch and I agree they mostly do a good job. If they make it a pay site you’re right, they’ll be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to content especially with accusations of bias.

      The one thing that would be attractive about a pay site though would be the fact that users would most likely have to register which would instantly reduce much of the harassment and sock puppetry. But then how much of the opinion of ordinary Australians versus astroturfers would we be reading?

    • Dash says:

      03:18pm | 07/06/11

      @Economist, I think what this proves is that the government has done an extremely poor job of trying to sell this thing. And I can see that is exactly what you are saying.

      My understanding of the Garnout proposal, is that the tax free threshhold will only be made available to people earning under 80,000 a year! And anyone over that will not be given the benefit of any changes in margin tax rates or the uplift of the threshold. In other words, one tax system for one part of the population and one for the other. This is what I’m dead against! As soon as you start doing that, you shift the burden of the tax on to people on the basis of what they earn, not on the basis of how they pollute. That is my point!

      My understanding is that this will not be budget neutral! The government has said that 50% of the revenue will be handed back! Some to industry and some to the taxpayers of the ALPs choosing. My comment about the compensation scheme is that if this is meant to be market driven, you should not descriminate against families on the basis of their income. You only need to listen to the ALP talk about compensating low income earners to realise who they are targetting. They have even tried to say that people will make money out of this policy purely on the basis of their income levels. That is socialism! It’s taking from your family and giving to someone else just because the ALP deem them more worthy, even if their carbon footprint is greater. This point seems to be constantly missed in this whole debate.

      If producers can pass thier costs onto the consumer, and if there is no economically viable alternative, then there is no incentive.

      It’s no wonder we can’t reach consensus when our understanding of how this is meant to work is not aligned. That speak volumes for what a dog this whole policy is.

      You make sense and I agree with all of your sentiment, but that’s not what the ALP is proposing. It’s extremely hard to see through all of the disinformation. The government is trying to sell this on emotion and is very very light on facts.

    • Seano says:

      03:32pm | 07/06/11

      @AtM - where you supposed to post that non-contribution under your regular handle or your sock puppet or did you get confused again?

    • Dash says:

      03:41pm | 07/06/11

      @Seano, The reference to 6 days was only because that’s how far out from the election Gillard made her committment (which turned out to be worthless). I also don’t think any of us should just accept pollies telling lies. We need to at least uphold some sort of morality. You wouldn’t allow that behaviour from your kids.

      If you change your mind like Howard did over the GST, that’s fine, but at least do the right thing. Understand that you’ve mislead people and take it to an election. That’s exactly what Howard did with the GST. Gillard should do the same and win the support of the people. She needs to be transparent about the whole thing.

      Seano, if you look closely at my posts, my issue is not with action on climate change, but with the way it is being delivered and dressed up to be something it is not. Please read through my posts from today again, and you will see where my issues are.

    • Mattb says:

      04:22pm | 07/06/11

      @ATM, Brad McT, or whatever your real name is.
      I went back and read through the posts from Sunday’s punch article which you claim Seano got a ‘beat down’ in, and I must say, ICB on your claims.
      I think it’s classic how you ‘come out swinging’ immediately whenever you see a post from Seano. You’ve really got a thing for him haven’t you, it’s could almost be classified as stalking. Your ranting also comes across as slightly delusional, do you see things no one else does?, dead people?, unicorns?, fairies or angels?

      And, while I’ve got you, what does ‘against the man’ stand for?, who is this ‘man’ your against?. Is he the boogyman?. Do you hide under your blanky at night staring at the cupboard waiting for him to come out a get you?

      Or is it ‘the man’, in the traditional hippy sense of ‘big brother government’ and ‘private enterprise’ conspiring to beat down your door and take away your freedoms whilst you take another paranoia inducing toke from your bong.

      I’m really interested who this ‘man’ is that your against buddy. Maybe we can all join you in being ‘against’ him. Please enlighten us…...

    • Economist says:

      04:50pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash,

      regarding budget neutrality my understanding is Garnauts proposal is for 55% to go to households (72% via tax changes as highlighted and 38% via Centrelink). 35% to go to compensate businesses and 10% for innovation, 5-10 for carbon farming less maket offsets (5-10%)leaving zero.

      You’ve stated “My understanding of the Garnout proposal, is that the tax free threshhold will only be made available to people earning under 80,000 a year”. you could be right but I thought it applied to everyone. Everyone gets the $25000 tax free threshold, but in order to get it back they change the other rates not the top rate, more like Henry’s proposal to tax at 35% between 25,000 and $180000 (or some other similar rate). If for example the carbon tax raises $11B then $4-5 billion will be used to compensate via changes in the tax free thresholds and tax rates, meaning if you earn less than $180000 you’ll pay less income tax to the tune of $4-5b, but sure more will go to lower income earners, I suspect. If you earn less than $25000 you’ll pay no tax, however I believe, and I could be wrong, that other transfers for low income earners will no longer exist i.e. the low income tax offset. 

      I agree that using the income tax system to compensate is not exactly direct action.

      Other economist have argued that the price of $26 doesn’t make it economically viable for producers to look at alternatives, some argue a price of $100 would be required fo a switch to total renewables. So your point there is no economically viable alternative could be valid. 

      I agree I’m still confused.

    • Against the Man says:

      05:06pm | 07/06/11

      Hey MattB thanks for coming to Seano’s aid! I was getting so worried, the poor guy is clearly out of his depth. Maybe you didn’t see the beatdown, we all see what we want to see I guess and that is fair enough. But I’m not alone in calling Seano on his claim that he isn’t confused by the carbon tax.

      And since you ask, ATM stands for the majority view. I stand against Labor and the carbon tax. Please MattB show me the poll result that shows the majority want a carbon tax? Please show me the myriad of Labor achievements. Please convert me to your point of view. Please don’t let me call BS on your big talk no back-up BS.

      Seano has been beaten down and struggling to have credibility, like TChong all talk but can’t answer the direct questions.

      So MattB you gonna give the majority what they want or stick to the minority roll call or tell me you don’t vote for the party but the policies BS?

      The Punch can trace the ISP and see who is posting multiple times from the same place so go ahead check and see. The Galaxy poll backs up my view and makes Seano an irrelevant putz!

      Oh Seano did you say something, sorry didn’t hear you there….....speak up or seek help smile

      Oh MattB just one more thing
      ‘in a perfect world pollies would never lie. But such a world does not exist; after all you had to isolate Howard to only not telling a lie 6 days out from an election’ Seano

      Seano is a teacher, he is saying Gilltard can lie because all politicians lie? Is that what he is saying? Is that a good thing for a teacher to teach? Hey look everyone is doing drugs so it is ok kids?

      Have a good evening gentlemen, I know I am.

    • Seano says:

      05:48pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash - You can say Howard did the right thing over the GST but he certainly didn’t over workchoices where he claimed an election win was a mandate knowing full well that your average punter had no idea that such laws could be on the table. When it comes to politicians, regardless of political stripe the truth malleable.

      But again I think there’s a definite difference between changing your mind honestly and lying. And we should be more open to that who ever is in power. I think Gillard honestly believed that the Carbon tax was off the table before the election. Things have changed but tackling climate change has never been off the table from either side so it should be no surprise that the carbon tax is back on the table as imo the best option currently available. Do you honestly think Abbott will roll it back if he wins next time? Labor said they’d roll back the GST it didn’t happen, when the Carbon tax is barely a blip on the radar I suspect that the truth about roll backs will be one of those truths that suddenly become malleable.


      @Dash - You can say Howard did the right thing over the GST but by that standard he certainly didn’t over workchoices. He claimed an election win as a mandate knowing full well that your average punter had no idea that such laws could be on the table. When it comes to politicians, regardless of political stripe the truth is always malleable.

      But again I think there’s a definite difference between changing your mind honestly and lying. And we should be more open to that whoever is in power. I think Gillard honestly believed that the Carbon tax was off the table before the election. Things have changed. However tackling climate change has never been off the table from either side so it should be no surprise that the carbon tax is back on the table as the best option (IMO and obviously many others better qualified) currently available.

      Do you honestly think Abbott will roll it back if he wins next time? Labor said they’d roll back the GST it didn’t happen, when the Carbon tax is barely a blip on the radar I suspect that the truth about roll backs will be one of those truths that suddenly become malleable.

      @Mattb - Appreciate the support but my own fault in a way. I should ignore the trolls. Unfortunately I have always had zero tolerance for bullies and bullshit.

      That said if AtM is pounding out tonnes of crazy on a keyboard somewhere….well at least he’s off the streets.

    • Seano says:

      05:50pm | 07/06/11

      “But I’m not alone in calling Seano on his claim that he isn’t confused by the carbon tax.”

      Certainly not AtM. I’m sure you’ve got the support of most of your sock puppets for a start.

    • Economist says:

      06:14pm | 07/06/11

      Dash a couple of limericks for you grin

      There once was a Puncher called Dash
      Concerned how the government spent his cash
      It was the Carbon tax you see
      Nobody had a clue, not you not me
      Fu** Labor and their policy mish-mash

      There once was a bloke called Economist
      Explaining the carbon tax just to assist
      Between you and me
      Not a clue did he
      He made a meal of it hand over fist

    • Mattb says:

      07:48pm | 07/06/11

      @against the man

      Ok, so from what I can gather from your post, ‘against the man’ stands for ‘the majority view’. Shit, yeah, your right, cant see how i didn’t make that connection the first time. Um, quick question tho, why don’t you simply call yourself ‘the majority view’ then?

      Then you started rambling about labor and the carbon tax and your obvious objection to it, not that I bought any of that up in my post to you, but ok, I’ll play along. Your right, there’s not too many poll results out there showing the majority want a carbon tax. However, how much trust can you put in poll results?, and you also have to see the context in which the questions asked in the poll are structured, not simply the resultant poll stats. Critically analyze everything you read, as not all is always as it seems

      I’m not going to bother going into ‘the myriad’ of labor achievements with you, suffice to say they haven’t achieved a great deal, something I believe you and I would be in agreement. And as for ‘converting’ you to my point of view, nah, sorry mate, couldn’t give a shit if you don’t agree with my point of view.

      I can give you my point of view on climate change tho, if it helps, and how we as a nation should deal with it, it goes a little like this. (you don’t have to read it if you think it may upset you)

      I believe in man-made climate change, the science IS settled IMO
      I believe we need to do something about it and the sooner the better
      I believe a carbon price implemented WITHOUT compensation would be a good place to start, thus I don’t agree with labors current policy
      I believe an emissions trading scheme would be better
      I believe the liberal party’s ‘direct action’ policy is a complete wank and just a front for a Tony Abbott led party that will never implement a climate change policy anyway
      I believe the world is beginning to move on the issue of tackling climate change and that Australia shouldn’t allow itself to get left behind, so at this point in time we need to go with the policy that has the greatest chance of passing through parliament. That’s the governments carbon pricing mechanism
      I hope, as gillard has stated, it leads us to a ETS asap, but hey, why trust what a pollie says, they all lie.

      But, this is just MY opinion, please don’t go getting all paranoid on me and think I’m trying to force it upon you. 

      As for the rest of your post, not sure if it’s directed at me or seano who your currently stalking. (I also noticed you made no attempt to deny that fact)

    • Against the Man says:

      11:08am | 08/06/11

      @ MattB -  Seano, TChong, John A Neve all wanted to start something with me…..couldn’t keep up and now want to weasel their way out.

      Seano talks crap and hides - simple. His views are the minority views and he has a twisted sense of logic.

      Like I said I wan’t the one who organised the beatdown and I wasn’t the only one to notice it….................the majority think Seano and his views are stupid and pointless smile

      ps: I agree with your point on how much you can put into a poll result…........so why doesn’t Gilltard take it to an election and get a majority government out of it…..........like Seano she only talk is the talk but doesn’t walk the walk…............oh and if you didn’t give a shit you wouldn’t have bothered to defend poor Seano.

    • Seano says:

      01:52pm | 08/06/11

      I’m not sure what’s sane about calling people names and hiding behind sock puppets. But then it must be my “twisted sense of logic”.

      Seek help.

    • Lee-Anne Hayes says:

      07:35am | 07/06/11

      I agree Mandy, Abbot hasn’t bothered to put anything positive forward for anything though…..so I guess Dr No is a great name for him and his ilk.  I’m sick and tired of hearing the negative spiel from Abbott. He never seems to say anything positive. I usually listen to both sides to try and get a perspective of where opponents are at. However I now turn off Abbott and his negativity. I can’t abide it ! I am in two minds about the carbon tax but not as to whom I ‘m listening to.

    • d says:

      07:44am | 07/06/11

      “Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more, then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate?

      “It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price of carbon, raise the price of carbon, without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.”

      Words of a smart man…. but who said them…. oh yeah it was Tony Abbott

    • LizzieA says:

      09:38am | 07/06/11

      if Tony Abbott was so smart d, why is he now reneging on this position and saying “NO” to absolutely everything, including the carbon tax he though was a good idea 18 months ago?

    • d says:

      10:48am | 07/06/11

      A few possible answers…
      He is fighting peer pressure
      He is an EMO
      He has oldtimers

    • PTom says:

      10:53am | 07/06/11

      @d
      Do you know how much paper was created because of the GST on business?

      Abbott Consumer Carbon Tax would not just be on electricity it would be on alot more and then there are the offsets. So the amount of paper work would be massive. It would also only encourage the well off to change.

      If I have Solar pannel at home and only use electricity from a alternative energy I would pay less tax then someone that just use carbon energy. 
      If you get a rebate to force people to change means that those that only use carbon energy get no rebate while those that use non-carbon emission get higher rebate.  This mean a smaller tax burden and higher rebates would people that can most afford to change.

      “Words of a smart man” - I say NO

    • thatmosis says:

      07:49am | 07/06/11

      Another Labor/Green troll has her 5 seconds of fame and gets it so wrong again.
      Let’s put this Carbon Tax to bed once and for all. Its not going to do anything to “save” the planet as whatever we do over the next couple of years will be negated within a week or even days by the emerging countries or a natural occurrence like a volcano erupting. This Tax is just that, a Tax to raise revenue for a Government who is bereft of ideas except those that require the people of Australia to pay through the nose. These 45,000 people that attended the rallies probably did it in good faith but even those must be inclined to believe that a tax on nothing for nothing without a proper mandate is not really the way to go. Get Up talks about being ready to go 100% alternative but lets face it we are almost 50 years away from peak load resources from alternative at the moment. How many of the people who attended the rallies did so by Shanks’s pony or push bike, how many live 100% on solar power, .0001% or less. Until those wanting this tax can prove that the average Australian is going to be better off, that this tax will save the planet and that they can live sustainably on alternative power then they should not Get Up but Shut Up. I live on 100% alternative power etc and know that there are those things that people take for granted that just don’t happen on this type of power. Apart from that there is the initial cost and the ongoing maintenance that is required and I suspect that this hasn’t been adequately dealt with by any organisation except to say it’s the way of the future. These Solar panels on the roof that put power back into the grid are doing nothing to curb the pollution that is pumped out 24/7 by the power stations but it is given the power companies a cheaper supply to pass onto the public at an inflated price. A 1.5Kw array will not run an average household successfully even with $8,000 to $10,000 worth of batteries, an inverter and all the paraphernalia that goes with a stand alone power supply. The whole thing is window dressing of the worst kind as the price of power will continue to go up whilst the monies payed for that power fed back into the grid will eventually decline until it is no longer a viable alternative. The proof is in the power bills, have a look at how much the power prices have risen since this feed back system started, scary isn’t it. We are being conned by a Government who is relying on the people accepting this Tax so they can have the budget back into surplus sometime. Time to confront those who are in power and let them know in no uncertain terms that their position depends on doing what the real people want not the minority who seem to hold sway at the moment. Nothing gets action faster from a politician than when they are faced with defeat on a grand scale

    • Bev says:

      09:15am | 07/06/11

      Have to agree.  what is being installed on roof tops is almost totaly useless in its present form. Having outfitted a caravan for off road work I know what is involved.  Even a modest system which will run an efficent fridge/freezer, lighting and a few electrical appliances like a computer and TV and have enough battery backup for two days (when the sun doesn’t shine) will cost the best part of $4000.  This precludes using electrically heated appliances like frypans etc.  Then I have to carry a generator as emergency backup just in case the sun doesn’t shine during bad weather and I depend on gas for cooking The cost of having a stand alone house is so high that most people just could not afford it. Then there is effeciency loses in a distributed system and disposing of the millions of batteries at the end of their life they cannot just be thrown on the local dump.

    • austrialien says:

      08:05am | 07/06/11

      from joannenova.com.au;

      The key question — with all the billions spent on cutting Australia’s carbon production: the trade and income lost; the jobs cut; the pain of living near wind farms; the foreign holidays avoided and then paying more for petrol and electricity than we have to — how many degrees will our actions cool the world by?

      Assuming the IPCC are right about the effects of CO2, and that Australia stopped producing CO2 entirely (if we all left the country) by 2100 the world would be 0.0123 degrees cooler, and sea levels would be 2mm lower. These are so small they are unmeasureable.


      Abandon Australia and save

      0.0123°C

      The statistics every Australian should know:
      Australia produced 1.38% of global human emissions of CO2 in 2011. (EIA, 2011a)
      Each year global emissions increase by twice Australia’s total annual output. (2.8%/year (EIA, 2011a). If we all emigrated and left a bare deserted continent, it puts off the warmer Armageddon by just six months.
      The numbers were calculated with Wigley 1998 protocol assuming that Australia would otherwise have kept producing about 3% of the total CO2 emissions of developed countries. The SPPI estimate uses Wigley’s (1998) mid-range emissions scenario (which itself is based upon the IPCC’s scenario “IS92a”):

      Read the full SPPI paper by Chip Knappenberger: Impacts of Climate Mitigation Measures in Australia.

      Where’s the value for money Julia?
      The theme of 2011 will be to keep repeating the question:

      How much will it cost and how many degrees will it save?

      This is surely the most expensive, all encompassing legislative proposal ever tabled that will produce (at best) a benefit so small that its unmeasurable.


      References
      Wigley, T. M. L. (1998), The Kyoto Protocol: CO2 CH4 and climate implications, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(13), 2285–2288, doi:10.1029/98GL01855

      Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2010. International Energy Outlook 2010.

      U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011a. International Energy Statistics, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

    • Andrew says:

      09:04am | 07/06/11

      Shhh! You’re making to much sense. Don’t let anyone hear you speak practically. You’ll be branded a damned heretic denier. Embrace the new climate change (notice its not global warming anymore) religin and we will all be saved. Hallelujah!

    • Dash says:

      09:50am | 07/06/11

      austrialien - Thank you for showing that this policy has zero to do with the environment and everything to do with raising revenue and making Middle and High income Australia pay the price. This policy is about socialist wealth redistribution and nothing else. The sooner people realise that the better. Welcome to the Australian Socialist Republic.

    • persephone says:

      10:11am | 07/06/11

      And if we - as a global community - do nothing, the temperature will continue to rise, rather than stopping at two degrees.

      Already the costs of rising temperatures are being felt through the impact of natural disasters - and we’re still looking at a degree more, even with action, so we can expect more to come.

      So doing nothing isn’t an option.

      And global action relies on everyone doing their part.

    • Dash says:

      10:33am | 07/06/11

      persephone - tell me by exactly how much will global average temperatures change as a result of this policy? And isn’t it true that the impact of Australian coal sales to China will impact temperatures multiple times more in the opposite direction?

      And why does doing something require us to have a socialist policy of wealth redistribution attached? And why is the ALP looking to descriminate against families on the basis of income?

      btw - which natural disasters are you aware of that have a direct cause attributable to climate change?

      Good luck trying to sell this fraud Perse!

    • Michael says:

      10:50am | 07/06/11

      Liar persephone, still beating the alarmist drum, try posting the stats to back your argument, yes everytime you have the argument not on a thread two months ago that no-one is going to look for.

    • Charles says:

      08:21am | 07/06/11

      Tony Abbott was merely talking through possibilities, and saying that if the ALP dared they could just put a tax on CO2 if they wanted to, rather than let the open market have a giant Ponzi scheme trading in thin air with an ETS.

      As history shows the ALP were dumb enough to do it, and now they find themselves in a horrible hole of their own making.  That’s what comes from leading with your chin which can now safely be described as the ‘ALP way’.

      In terms of scares, the rubbish put out by the ALP about Climate Change just beats everything.  There is no (bad) scenario that has not been visited in recent times and if you listed to the rhetoric it is all the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse plus Pandora’s box all combined that is about to be visted on us.

      However, there have been three recent warmings in the last 5 millenia (Medieval, Greco-Roman and Minoan Warm Periods) and Phil Jones of CRU fame has said it is likely they were either just as warm and more likely warmer than it is today.  Interestingly, these were periods when human civilisation flourished, as opposed to the cooler periods in-between where they generally went backwards.

      So, all the sky-falling-in rhetoric that the ALP espouses will likely soon be exposed as just another Chicken Little fantasy, and hopefully you will all become just another group of feather-dusters in history , which I believe is your destiny for having perpetrated this fraud on your fellow citizens

    • Mayday says:

      09:03am | 07/06/11

      Great read Charles and your point about history showing the ALP are dumb enough to repeat mistakes over and over has not been lost.

      If only the voters would learn!

    • persephone says:

      10:16am | 07/06/11

      Except that history doesn’t show anything of the kind.

      The warming events referred to appear to have been confined to the Northern Hemisphere.

      The evidence suggests that the globe as a whole was not warmer.

    • Confused says:

      11:10am | 07/06/11

      The reason there is no historical records of globe warming Persephone is during the periods which Charles is refering to the only civilations in the southen hemispheres where, Australian Aboriganies, Africans and Southen American IdianTribes. two of which didn’t keep historical records and one of which was basicly wiped out by the spanish.

      SO your right the history doesn’t show it….. Mostly because nobody recorded it.

    • Jim says:

      12:41pm | 07/06/11

      “Except that history doesn’t show anything of the kind.” - lies…history does indeed show that. The evidence is for all to see…even if you only have one eye, and it’s red.

      “The warming events referred to appear to have been confined to the Northern Hemisphere.” - misleading…most of recorded history is from the northern hemisphere as that is where most of recorded history comes from.

      “The evidence suggests that the globe as a whole was not warmer.” - lies…again, bucketloads of evidence suggesting that we are seeing some of the lowest temperatures ever recorded outside of the several ice ages already experienced.

      Of course you deny the real evidence as it does not fall under the ALP/Green Manual of Conveniently Doctored Claims on AGW, does it…

    • JohnL says:

      02:36pm | 07/06/11

      “Interestingly, these were periods when human civilisation flourished, as opposed to the cooler periods in-between where they generally went backwards.”
      I’m a bit unclear on this point, are you saying that this flourishing of human civilization effected the climate at these points in time? A bit of a chicken & egg argument here.
      The climate has always changed, no-one is arguing this. Temperature fluctuations abound throughout observable time with some causes that are provable (e.g. volcanic, impact) and some that are not.
      The key point is that for the first time since photosynthesis began a third source of CO2 has appeared without a corresponding sink. No-one knows what this means as there is no evidence to refer to, it’s all unprecedented. All that can be done is study the almost unlimited cause and effect scenarios. There have been so many models built that show us some things but lets be honest, we don’t even know the size of the set of processes we are dealing with.
      Also science will often trump written history, archeology for one will shows us how humans flourished or not no matter if they wrote anything down.

    • Tator says:

      05:27pm | 07/06/11

      Persphone,
      according to the warmist Goddard Institute, the current “global warming” is mainly prevelent in the northern hemisphere as well. 
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/  (2nd map down on right hand side)
      so basically that argument doesn’t hold water either if you are trying to dismiss the medievil etc warm periods as non global events as even the current “Global warming” isn’t global as significant areas have actually had significant cooling compared to the same global average.

    • persephone says:

      06:02pm | 07/06/11

      Tator

      overall, the globe is warming.

      In the MWP, the warming was only restricted to a portion of the globe - the globe as a whole does not appear to have warmed.

      Big difference.

    • Tator says:

      08:54pm | 07/06/11

      Persephone,
      that image I was referring to shows that even the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is one of the main data sets that the ACC proponents use, shows that the whole globe isn’t currently warming and that there are substantial areas of the globe which have not warmed or had substantially cooled (at least a third of the globe) and that it is only the substantial warming over Russia and the bulk of Europe with several hot spots in tropical North America and Brazil providing the leap in averages

    • persephone says:

      10:18pm | 07/06/11

      Tator

      One of the reasons the term ‘climate change’ is preferred over ‘global warming’ is that ‘global warming’ gives people the impression that everywhere is going to get hotter.

      This isn’t necessarily what’s happening, or what’s going to happen - in fact, it’s not impossible that global warming could trigger Ice Age conditions in some areas (e.g. cold water from the poles, released as the ice shelves melt, could cut off some of the currents which bring warm air from the tropics to northern countries).

      So an area - even quite a big one - being colder doesn’t disprove global warming and doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole isn’t warming.

      But at least you admit that the planet is getting warmer!

    • Tator says:

      11:42pm | 07/06/11

      Persephone,
      My point is that you stated that the MWP was not global and I pointed out that neither is the current “global” warming, thus making your attemped impeachment of the statement that the MWP was similar to current conditions invalid.  You cannot say that the MWP was different because it did not affect the entire globe when the current warming doesn’t either.

    • SJ says:

      08:22am | 07/06/11

      After seeing a few of the other comments on here this morning against Erick, it seems that as usual the Global Warmists are out in full force (including that troll, the Unionist) and attacking people for throwing up the argument that Climate Change is not an absolute certainty. It would ordinarily be hilarious to see how so many people in this country have just compliantly bought the lies of the government and bribed scientists and now rant and rave that ‘Climate Change is real, I tell you!’ - Unfortunately, in reality - its downright worrying and scary. Look at the logical facts, look at the recorded history and look at the arguments thrown up by BOTH sides of the fence. The point that most people seem to miss is that, at the end of the day - NO-ONE can unequivocally prove that Climate Change is real and happening and will be as dangerous and life threatening as it is toted. Whilst we are still not in agreement scientifically - the last thing anyone on this planet should be doing is hacking society apart both financially and culturally in order to prevent a ‘threat’ of our ‘own’ making. Our children and their children and their children will look back on us in the coming decades and will be infuriated that we as a society allowed the government to instill this poppycock. Its going to irrevocably change the way we live and based on the ASSUMPTION that CLimate Change IS real - it won’t actually do anything to help the threat to our planet. Scary times ahead. Its sad - to see fellow citizens tear at each other because some choose to believe in what the government have spread out there and some choose to disbelieve.

    • persephone says:

      10:34am | 07/06/11

      Well, Tony Abbott has for one.

      Get over the whinge about whether or not the science is settled.

      Your opinion on the science doesn’t count, and both parties are committed to action.

      On that basis, we should be weighing up the options.

    • Dash says:

      11:31am | 07/06/11

      @Perse - what does the science say will be the impact on average global temperatures of the ALPs tax? Where does the science say we need a compensation scheme that descriminates against families on the basis of income? Why is the taxpayer funding ALP hand picked experts to tell us what the ALP wants us to hear?

    • SJ says:

      01:21pm | 07/06/11

      Persephone - well you’re a rude one, aren’t you? My opinion on science counts as much as yours does, you arrogant piece and both your opinion and my opinion count as much as every other Australian out there who is going to be impacted in SOME way by this tax. Just because both parties are committing to action DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT. And again I reiterate as per my earlier comment - about fellow citizens tearing at one another. You’re a prime example. - Can you not understand just how tempting the concept of a Carbon Tax or ETS to ANY government in the world is - its a cash cow! That’s all this ever was about. Of course both parties are committed.

    • persephone says:

      01:29pm | 07/06/11

      Dash

      why aren’t you raising the same concerns over the Coalition’s plan?

      It will cost you even more and you won’t get any compensation for it.

      If (as has been suggested) there is a rejigging of the tax free threshold as part of Labor’s, at least you’ll get something.

    • Dash says:

      04:02pm | 07/06/11

      Persephone - The proposed rejigging of the tax free threshhold is only going to be made available for people on 80,000 or less. Those over 80,000 will not be allowed to take advantage. At least that was the proposal from “tax expert” Garnaut. And that backs up my claims about this being merely a wealth redistribution policy!

      The LNP are not proposing to implement a new tax! And they are not proposing a socialist wealth reallocating compensation scheme.

      And your comments about costing more is complete bullshit since the ALP hasn’t even agreed a price!!!

      Perse, come on - the ALP are going to descriminate against people on the basis of what they earn not on the basis of how they pollute. That’s where I have issues! As soon as you start doing that, it has nothing to do with the environment. Nothing that’s been said or done, changes my view on that. Everything I hear about compensating low income households proves it!

    • persephone says:

      05:16pm | 07/06/11

      SJ

      Given that the government doesn’t get any gains by imposing a carbon price, I’m not sure how it can be seen as a cash cow.

      You appear to be one of those ‘tax is evil’ people who think that governments hide money under their pillows and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck when noone is looking.

      Instead, of course, we have mysterious things called ‘Budgets’ which are available for anyone to analyse, which show exactly where all that money goes.

      Governments collect money to spend. We might disagree with how they spend it, but to suggest they’re accumulating money for no reason at all is simply silly.

      As for the ‘science isn’t settled’ nonsense - governments have a responsibility to act on perceived threats. They have taken far more costly action than this on threats with far less backing than this one has. For governments not to act in these circumstances would be reckless in the extreme.

      Which is the real reason why not only both sides of Parliament here, but around the world, agree that there must be action.

    • Flexo says:

      08:26am | 07/06/11

      The focus should be on Jooliar and not Tony. She needs to clarify her own policy and explain why she is going against the wishes of the Australian people. Right now it looks like the carbon tax is a big waste of policy time. What about healthcare? What is going on with the NBN? Why are 12% of Australian children living below the poverty line? Where is the economic development in this country? Politicians like the PM should focus on the needs of Australians rather than what she needs to do to stay in power.

    • David C says:

      08:55am | 07/06/11

      thats easy to answer, as a condition of getting the top job she had to bring in a carbon tax to satisfy the Greens as stated by Christine Mine this morning
      She sold out to the Greens for her own gain and now she is selling the country out. All to appease a party with 14% of the vote and a bleak future.

    • Mayday says:

      09:00am | 07/06/11

      Why are 12% of Australian children living below the poverty line?

      Good question, perhaps Bob Hawke can answer that one.

    • nossy says:

      08:44am | 07/06/11

      STOP PRESS”  “Toxic Tony” supports a Carbon tax ! yes its true - good old Dr NO has previously come out in support of a Carbon Tax as the linked article catches him out. In 45 years of following politics I have never come across a weaker, more hypocritic leader of the Federal Liberal Party. All I have to say today re “Tony The One Trick Pony” after this expose is “SHAME ABBOTT SHAME” !
      http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-dogged-by-old-carbon-comment-20110607-1fprb.html

    • Andrew says:

      09:16am | 07/06/11

      List of weaker hypocritical leaders of the Labor party worse than TA:
      1. Kevin “the greatest moral challenge of our time” Rudd
      2. Juliar “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” Gillard
      3. Paul “say no to a GST then tries to introduce it” Keating
      4. Bob “no child shall live in poverty” Hawke
      Ah, the list goes on. Just remember the old saying, don’t listen to what labor say, watch what they do.
      Labors a joke. Lost all credibility.
      Aren’t you the same nossy who said TA was going to be replaced as leader by March?
      Come to think of it you have about the same credibility as the ALP. Zero.

    • Karen says:

      09:31am | 07/06/11

      He didn’t come out supporting a carbon tax you desperate idiot.  He was commenting on what the Government should do if they insist on a carbon tax. He has NEVER supported a carbon tax.

    • Dash says:

      09:52am | 07/06/11

      Nossy - I liked you better when you were out on your boat!

    • nossy says:

      11:38am | 07/06/11

      @Karen - dear sweet Karen he told us on TV he tells lies and now the proof is in -“Toxic Tony the UNtruth Teller”  - hhahahahah ohhh how sweet it is ! have a great day my love - I will.

    • Christian Real says:

      05:22am | 08/06/11

      Andrew
      Julia Gillard did say in an interview with ‘The Australian’ on the eve of the last Federal Election that she would legislate Carbon pricing during her next term.
      It is only Tony “don’t believe everything I say ” Aboott that is ranting and raving about it being a carbon tax, and it is only the Liberal clones that are echoing Tony “Don’t believe everything I say ” Abbott’s diatribe.
      It seems that Tony Abbott also said that unless they are carefully prepared written statements that he makes then they can’t be taken as the gospel truth.
      That would mean that any verbal statement that Tony Abbott makes can’t be the gospel truth.
      This story from The Australian, August 20, 2010 @ 12.00AM
      “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”, written by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan.
      “Jullia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”
      It seems Andrew that the only one lying is Tony Abbott,once gain making up stories ,and as they are not carefully prepared written statements,then he can’t be telling the gospel truth.
      And this old 2009 interview that Tony Abbott did on Q&A came to light on Monday.
      “Abbott dogged by old carbon comment”, June 7,2011 @ 10.13Am.
      “Tony Abbott’s past as a climate change “weather Vane” has come back to haunt him again.”
      “The Opposition Leader has been shown spruiking a carbon tax in an old interview that was aired on Q&A on ABC Television yesterday.”
      “If you want to put a price on carbon,why not do it with a simple tax? Mr Abbott argues”

    • Andrew says:

      09:08am | 07/06/11

      If Labor concentrated as much on running the country properly as they do on trying to run down Abbott they might have some credibility.

      Face it, the electorate has switched off to Labor’s lies and deceit. Only rusted on fools like Nossy and Perse still remain faithful. Labors become a joke and Abbott is wiping the floor with you.

      Call an election you cowards!

    • Elphaba says:

      10:15am | 07/06/11

      That’s all I want.  If the country says ‘Yes’ to Labor and a carbon tax, I’ll keep my mouth shut and wear it.

      If Labor really think this is the best solution for the people, then let the people decide.

    • Mattb says:

      11:37am | 07/06/11

      @Andrew

      If the liberals concentrated on coming up with some GOOD alternative policies instead of trying to run down the government they might have some credibility.

      See, it works both ways Andrew…

      @elphaba

      I want, I want, i want, waa, waa, waa, i saw a child do that at the supermarket checkout the other day when things didn’t go his way.

      Use the term ‘I would like’ instead Elphaba, that way you come across as a rational, polite, adult human being and less like a stroppy five year old.

      However, we had an election just last year, so the answer is no…..

    • Melrusk says:

      11:40am | 07/06/11

      @ Andrew,
      How exactly is Abbott wiping the floor?
      He has made an art form of Deny All and offered nothing as an alternative.
      I suspect it may be AAAAAAAAa a Abbott who the country are tiring of.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:45am | 07/06/11

      @Mattb,

      Seriously?  All you’ve got is to lecture me on the way I talk?

      And you’re telling me to grow up?

      That’s ok, I respect your right to express your opinion.  Just as you’ll respect my right, to want whatever I want, to use whatever language I want, and to call you a grade-A dingbat for providing absoutely nothing to the conversation.

      Ok?

      Have a great day. grin

    • Andrew says:

      12:09pm | 07/06/11

      @Mattb & @Melrusk, If you are so confident TA is turning off the Australian people and has no policies then you should be supporting my call for an election. If Labor won they would have a clear mandate for their carbon dioxide tax and Abbott would no doubt be tossed as liberal leader. Go on support my call for an election.

      You won’t because you know LNP would win in a landslide. I rest my case.

    • Melrusk says:

      12:45pm | 07/06/11

      News Poll 27-29 May
      “Who do you think would make the better Prime Minister?”
      Gillard 44%
      Abbott   37%
      Undecided 19%
      http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110508 Federal Voting Intention & Leaders Ratings.pdf

      There are no guarantees but those are not encouraging figures for Abbott.
      I am not convinced a Carbon Trading Scheme is the solution. ALP have failed to deliver their message clearly.
      I am convinced Abbott is boxed into a tactic of Deny All and this is all he has to offer.

    • Tom says:

      01:17pm | 07/06/11

      Melrusk, if you are confident that Abbott would lose why don’t you support a call for an election, this time with the electorate knowing Gillard’s true intentions and what is really at stake for them if they vote for Labor?

    • Melrusk says:

      01:48pm | 07/06/11

      Ah that would be as I am not an LNP Muppet. wink

    • Mattb says:

      01:50pm | 07/06/11

      @Andrew 
      Don’t need another election, the last one wasn’t even a year ago.

      And what’s this ‘mandate’ phenomenon you speak of sir?. I thought we elected governments, not mandates!
      Don’t remember keating have one of these ‘clear mandates’ when he floated the dollar.
      Can’t recall Howard’s ‘clear mandate’ when he took us all to war in Iraq and afghanistan.
      Was Howard’s GST policy ‘clearly mandated’?, if I recall rightly, he didn’t exactly ‘romp it in’ at that election. Does ‘romping it in’ actually give you a ‘clear mandate’?
      Was there clear mandates for flood, ansett, milk etc levies?
      In fact what constitutes a ‘clear mandate’ Andrew?, does every policy need one of these?

      ICB on the term mandate, it’s just a word that is used by both sides of politics, either in opposition or government, to help justify their policy or their opposition to a policy.

      And as for poll results, sorry mate, I’m only interested in one, the most important one!, and if the party that has the best policies and thus I believe deserves to govern at that point in time fails to get elected, well, I’m not gonna spit the dummy and scream ‘I want another election’. That would be childish and incredibly selfish…...

    • Tom says:

      03:14pm | 07/06/11

      Mattb and Melrusk, you are both full of it. Your words just tumble out. The Australian public do not want this dodgy tax.

      You can sit with smirks on your faces knowing that your party told a barefaced lie to the electorate and is now going to plunder Australians because they trusted you. And furthermore, you seem quite proud of your grubby actions.

    • Melrusk says:

      04:02pm | 07/06/11

      @Tom
      That would be assuming I work for The Party.
      Is that because You Work for The party, Are they funding you on this little rant?
      You appear to have quite the vested interest in arguing for their wish for an early election.
      If you argue an early election is to be called every time you don’t agree with a policy or a scheme you don’t agree with is tabled there would be no stability.
      I agree I am not convinced this scheme is the answer, but it is acknowledging there is a problem to be dealt with, this I can respect.
      Playing a game of Block All, Deny All shows a weakness of character and lack of direction this I do not respect.

    • Tom says:

      04:42pm | 07/06/11

      @Melrusk, without endorsing your use of the word “rant”, I don’t work for the party. My vested interest is in not paying for bludgers to cavort around in international hotels in places like Cancun and make deals with merchant bankers to skim money off Australian workers.

      Not so much a “vested interest in arguing for their wish for an early election” as a gob-smacked disgust with a party that is proud of lying to the punters. I endured 16 years of a NSW “whatever it takes” Labor government that covered up pedophilia and corruption.

      We agree we are not convinced this scheme is the answer. For me, the lack of transparency and evasiveness about its mechanics has a stench. Based on the dissenting literature, there is adequate doubt in my mind about the premise that underlies Labor’s solution (to stampede Australian workers to another tax). I don’t like terms like “deniers”, it smacks of mob rule.

      I don’t know if Abbott does the “Block All, Deny All” thing more than past oppositions (he might). Another perspective is that he has had more than his share of half arsed proposals to deal with.

      A “weakness of character”? You know what they say about the fine line between heroism and stubbornness. Lack of direction? For me getting Labor out isn’t a bad start. BTW, Abbott has espoused policies but our “august” media seems to suck out any oxygen for them (e.g. meeow-gate).

    • Tator says:

      05:53pm | 07/06/11

      Matt B,
      considering that GIllard and Swan both ruled out a carbon tax in this term and then backflipped to appease the greens means they do not have a mandate as it was not a policy that they took to the election.
      This is unlike the floating of the dollar which had bipartisan support when the legislation was voted on.

      Melrusk,
      pity about the primary ALP vote only being around 33% and the TPP being Coalition 53% and ALP 47%, this is on top of Gillard have a net disapproval rating of 19% compared to Abbott’s net disapproval of 16%

    • Andrew says:

      08:48pm | 07/06/11

      You guys are clutching at straws. YOu know it, I know it, FFS everyone knows it. I run a business so I don’t have as much time as you to spend on this stiff but at the end of the day if your party was likely to get support for its policies you’d love the idea of an election.

      I get it. Call one today and LNP wins in a landslide so you guys avoid it like the plague. Your problem is no matter what this very incompetwnt government does you will support them .I understand. No problem, but geez in a year or 2 u are going to be very unhappy campers. Abbott is all over labor and you guys are f*cked. ROTFLAO. Cheers.

      P.S. Whatever u write u can’t escape the fact u guys are scared sh*tless. If Labor wasn’t stuffing up the country so much this’d be fun to watch.

    • Christian Real says:

      08:38am | 08/06/11

      Andrew
      Do you condone a serial liar like Tony Abbott?, everything he says can be seen as lies.
      After all Tony Abbott, in his own words said:, “Don’t believe everything I say” and didn’t he also say, that unless statements were carefully planned written statements,then they could not be taken as the gospel truth.
      Well seeing most of Tony Abbotts statements and aruguments opposing this carbon pricing are verbally spoken, then it is obvious that they can’t be the gospel truth

    • Elphaba says:

      09:15am | 07/06/11

      And Labor’s plan is the best alternative?  They’re just as guilty of the fear campaign - don’t paint them to be rationalists, they’re f*cking crazy.

      Here’s an idea - how about NO carbon tax??

    • persephone says:

      10:20am | 07/06/11

      Elphaba

      given that both parties are agreed that action on climate change is necessary, surely we should be comparing their policies to see what they’ll achieve.

      ‘Doing nothing’ isn’t an alternative on offer (well, unless you believe that the Coalition are lying to the electorate…), so - instead of bitching about the science - we should be looking at the options.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:37am | 07/06/11

      Perspehone,

      I have compared their policies.  And they’re (both) a waste of time because no one else globally is on board.  We don’t live in an environmental bubble.  Our efforts for a greener planet don’t mean squat when other countries continue to consume and emit carbon without impunity.

      I know, I know.  You’re going to say that we can’t possibly get everyone on board and blah blah blah - the bottom line is, more needs to be done to get more nations on board, instead of penalising companies who will penalise the consumer, etc.

      And please don’t go into the compo again.  There’s no way they can accurately compensate individuals for their carbon use and you know it.  Low and middle get something, high gets nothing, and Labor pockets the rest for their precious surplus.  Business as usual.

      So yes, I think doing nothing is the right thing to do for now, and we should go back to the global table and come up with a solution that more countries will be on board with.  Because this is a joke.  It can’t possibly do anything to fix the environment because envirionment is a global issue.  It’s far more complicated, and requires far more in depth discussion than Labor’s Band-Aid solution of “slap a tax on it”.

    • persephone says:

      11:06am | 07/06/11

      Elphaba

      well, you’re wrong. There are a lot of countries on board. And others are working their way towards a solution.

      If anything, we’re lagging behind.

      The government doesn’t pocket a cent - if anything it pays out. And you know that, or you’re being wilfully ignorant.

      Don’t see why I’d go into the compo, as it’s nothing to do with what either of us posted.

      So you admit it’s a global problem and needs a global solution and yet you’re wilfully ignorant about what that implies?

      Elphaba, the only reason someone would be arguing this inconsistently would be if they were afraid of the truth.

      On one hand, you accept the facts. But you refuse to see their implications.

      You’re scared of the changes, and the challenges, and I can understand that. But forcing yourself to come up with rationalisations, rather than thinking things through and accepting where the logic leads you, will just make you more scared and more uncertain.

      It takes a bit of courage to look at things without blinkers, but it’s worth it. You’ll feel a lot better about yourself when you do.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:18am | 07/06/11

      @Perspehone, I’ve never argued this inconsistently.  You see what you want to see.  But no matter.  You’ll get bored of everyone disagreeing with you and go predictably silent.

      How much will the carbon tax reduce emissions again?  And how much will be invested in green energy?  How will we wean ourselves off carbon?  What about jobs in ‘undesirable’ energy production like coal and oil?  If all the money gets paid back to the consumer, are they supposed to do the government’s investing for them?  If high income earners are not going to be compensated and the government is not going to pocket any money, where does the high income earners money go?  To the low income earner?  To the investments?

      In your own time…

    • fairsfair says:

      11:18am | 07/06/11

      Just walk away Elphaba. Persephone has told you are wrong, so clearly you are, whatever.

      I’m currently reaching for the razor blades. I am so sick and tired of the same ramblings by the same people. You are saying the same stuff over and over and over again and then calling others willfuly ignorant?

      Please come up with some new material or stop.

    • Dash says:

      11:42am | 07/06/11

      @Elphaba, you cannot rationalise the behaviour of irrational people! Persephone, the mythical vegitation goddess, is living the compensation myth!

    • Elphaba says:

      11:49am | 07/06/11

      I missed this while I was away, Dash.  grin

    • Michael says:

      12:43pm | 07/06/11

      i missed you Elphaba, hope your holiday was fantastic smile

    • Mattb says:

      12:56pm | 07/06/11

      @Elaphaba, you cannot rationalize the behavior of irrational people!. Dash, the mythical master of economics, is living the ‘this is a socialist exercise in wealth redistribution and nothing else myth!’

      Amazing how you can counter many of the arguments here by changing a few words and a name or two around. Maybe that’s because they arent really arguments at all, just inane ramblings that don’t change anyone’s personal POV at the end of the day…

      @fairsfair (who I hope isn’t slashing a wrist right now),
      no one is forcing you to read the punch blogs, if your getting sick and tired of it you can always do something else. Not realizing this fact, well, now that is willful ignorance!

    • RyaN says:

      12:56pm | 07/06/11

      @persephone: “The government doesn’t pocket a cent - if anything it pays out.” sure, but how much of our hard earned carbon tax dollars does the UN take?

    • Jim says:

      12:57pm | 07/06/11

      I see you’ve already left this section persephone as you’ve been shown up again, but your comment “The government doesn’t pocket a cent ” is an outrageous lie.

      If you are, as many suspect, a Labor staffer paid to troll, then that comment alone, out of all your thousands upon thousands of condescending, sneering posts, highlights all to well the contempt that this Labor government holds the Australian public in.

      This tax has nothing to do with saving the planet, and everything to do with helping to bail out a failed government.

    • Dash says:

      01:23pm | 07/06/11

      Mattb - Yes you could change a few words but that wouldn’t show much intelligence now would it! Thinking for yourself is so important Matt. You should try it some time!

      Oh and for your information, Persephone has a place in Greek Mythology. And whilst I’ve been called God before (as in “Oh God Yeeeeees”), to my knowledge there is no mythical God that goes by the name Dash. A punctuation mark - Yes, the short form of one of Santas Reindeer - Yes, Mythical God - I don’t think so!

      But then again, perhaps it’s wrong of me to exect you to understand as you don’t strike me as a student of anything other than bullshit!

    • persephone says:

      01:25pm | 07/06/11

      Ryan

      not a cent, as far as I know.

      I’m sure you’ll correct me - using evidence - if I’m wrong.

      (fairsfair…thanks for the admission….amazing how few people realise this!)

    • Elphaba says:

      01:25pm | 07/06/11

      Cheers Michael, it was. grin

      @Mattb, who is Elaphaba?

    • AAAdam says:

      01:38pm | 07/06/11

      @ Pers - “given that both parties are agreed that action on climate change is necessary, surely we should be comparing their policies to see what they’ll achieve. ‘Doing nothing’ isn’t an alternative on offer (well, unless you believe that the Coalition are lying to the electorate…), so - instead of bitching about the science - we should be looking at the options.”

      Interesting spin. For me personally, if I have to pick between two policies that I don’t think we need, I’ll choose the one that doesn’t require me to pay a giant new tax.

    • AAAdam says:

      01:49pm | 07/06/11

      “The government doesn’t pocket a cent - if anything it pays out.”

      Lol. What an absurd statement. By this logic, the government doesn’t pocket a cent from any tax because they eventually spend it. All it really demonstrates is Labors propensity to spend every cent they receive in tax, plus more (and why they haven’t made a surplus in the last 2 decades).

    • fairsfair says:

      02:00pm | 07/06/11

      @Mattb - there are some really decent ideas and opinions in amongst the crap on this website. It would be wilfully ignorant to ignore valid notions of progress and policy from every day Australians just because the white noise created by others drowned it out. Sorting the weeds from the chaff and all that.

      For instance, attacking someone for their spelling and/or sentence structure is up there with Pattersons Curse - its white noise.  Somebody advising opinion on the comparison of two policies, their discontent with both and their desire to discuss other alternatives is valid. It asks simply to be read, not whited out by the same crap from the same people who have already said that same crap in other locations of the same thread.

    • persephone says:

      02:11pm | 07/06/11

      AAdam

      fine, and that’s your personal choice.

      You choose a socialist solution - the government decides what works and what doesn’t - over a free market solution.

      As for your other point, governments of all types and persuasions have applied levies which go to particular purposes and don’t impact on the budget directly since time immemorial.

      Under Howard, for example, there was the levy on milk. Everyone paid extra for their milk and that money went to helping the dairy industry restructure.

      Don’t remember any talk of the government pocketing that money - it was money raised and spent for a particular purpose, and no one questioned that.

      In this case, it will be spelled out in the legislation how the money is to be spent.

      My point - that it makes no difference to whether or not a budget surplus is achieved - stands.

    • AAAdam says:

      03:10pm | 07/06/11

      “You choose a socialist solution - the government decides what works and what doesn’t - over a free market solution”

      Nah, I’m just picking the cheaper option of two shitty plans that fail to recognise voters want neither. There is no empirical evidence of manmade climate change and as such, I don’t think we need a carbon price at all, so the effectiveness of either plan (or if is socialist or free market) is irrelevant to me. I’m just choosing the plan that doesn’t require me to pay a huge new tax on everything on the basis of unproven beliefs in manmade climate change.

    • Mattb says:

      03:22pm | 07/06/11

      @Elphaba

      ‘@Mattb, who is Elaphaba?’

      Elaphaba, is me spelling your name incorrectly, I would like to apologize, and would very much like you to accept my apology.

      @fairsfair
      Agreed, there is validity to some of the ideas and arguments put forward here, whether or not they change anyone’s POV is another arguement altogether. 
      Your the one that seems to be getting upset about it all though, and it seems your upset about pers because she has a different view than you. If you don’t agree with what pers is saying, counter her argument with your own factual argument in opposition to hers or stop reading the punch. Simply stating-

      “I’m currently reaching for the razor blades. I am so sick and tired of the same ramblings by the same people. You are saying the same stuff over and over and over again and then calling others willfuly ignorant?

      Please come up with some new material or stop.”

      is not countering her argument, it’s asking for her argument to be censored and calling for her to stop arguing what she believes in, simply because you don’t agree with it. 

    • fairsfair says:

      04:08pm | 07/06/11

      @Mattb - that is not the case and it is such an irrelevant line of conversation. The word “people” indicates a plural and I will also note that there is a difference between discussion and being talked at in a cut and paste fashion.

    • RyaN says:

      04:21pm | 07/06/11

      @persephone: no I am asking you since we aren’t privy to the info and don’t know the proportion of the carbon tax revenue that will be set aside for the United Nations Green Climate Fund, as agreed by the Australian Government at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and reconfirmed at the 2010 Cancun Conference.
      Clearly there has been an agreement to send our hard earned carbon tax dollars to the UN, what we don’t know is how much, I would have thought you knew.

    • persephone says:

      05:25pm | 07/06/11

      Ryan

      when you link to something, the custom is to read it first.

      It answers your questions.

      The money doesn’t go to the UN, it goes directly to third world countries to help them adapt.

      Hint: if third world countries cut their emissions, that helps everyone. It means we don’t have to reduce ours as much.

      Climate change is a global problem. It needs global solutions. If we help other countries mitigate their emissions, we all gain.

    • Gerry says:

      09:15am | 07/06/11

      Oh no, the scare campaign rah rah rah…..If you twits knew what you were doing he wouldn’t have anything to have a scare campaign about. You make it so easy for him.
      You try and make it sound as though this is an Abbott phenomenon, it’s not. You guys and your Union friends are masters at it.
      Remember your Workchoices scare campaign, your asylum seeker scare campaigns? And now your the earth is going to self destruct if we don’t have a carbon tax ,scare campaign.  Big Bad Tony, grow up guys.

    • jb says:

      09:19am | 07/06/11

      Hey Crusty is that an old video?
      I have a later one for you.
      ‘There will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead’
      Beat that puppy for lying…
      Face it Crusty Juliar mugged me, she mugged you, she mugged rudd but worst of all she mugged the entire county of Australia… thats why she can’t sell water to an Afghan…

    • nossy says:

      11:51am | 07/06/11

      @jb - gday jb - you will remember the 70’s in QLD under Sir Joh wouldnt you ? the occasional porky told then too wasnt there ?

    • sandy says:

      09:23am | 07/06/11

      Okay, you nay-sayers. It’s truth time. On the one hand you say there’s no absolute evidence of future calamity if we don’t act on polluters, (your leader, Brer Rabbit disagrees with you), and on the other hand you attack me and the P.M. for our disbelief in your ‘god’, the existence of which is not proven by any evidence, let alone ‘absolute’ evidence. You will say that you are not all “believers” but those who are not still support a wierdo with wierdo beliefs. How do you reconcile that? Oh, you’re Liberals! Sorry, I forgot.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:36am | 07/06/11

      This article is a disappointment. The lead in advises that the author will cast her eye over the plan.

      Where is discussion of the actual plan? I don’t see it in any detail - it is simply yet another article saying that Tony Abbott is a negative nancy. It appears if you say it enough it actually comes true.

      Maybe if there was one, even just one, presentation of a coalition policy based on its merits and not through the prism of someone shit canning it, people would be able to make up their own mind?

      I don’t agree with the plan in its entirity and infact I think Tony Abbott is a bit of a tool, but at least his Party’s Policy can be viewed and assessed unlike the continued crap spewed by the ALP.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:59am | 07/06/11

      Exactly.  Personally, I’d like to see us back away from any tax or fiddling with carbon in any way and just take a moment to think about what the real problem is here.

      We all live way too long.  We’ve allowed people who can’t have children naturally to procreate.  Not that I’m dissing that.  But it’s inevitable that we will run out of resources.  Simply put, nothing lasts forever.  When world population rates are addressed, then we can start making some decisions.  But it won’t be, because there’s no licence for breeding, and even the galactically stupid can do it.

      I have nothing against reducing carbon emissions.  But isn’t there some way we can do it that doesn’t involve punishing every single person in the country?

      We’ll never come up with a solution that works whilst ever we continue to act like the sky is falling.  There needs to be a global consensus and global action, or we’re just pissing into the wind.

    • persephone says:

      10:48am | 07/06/11

      Elphaba

      why not?

      Your post indicates that we’re all part of the problem, that we’re living beyond our means (that is, unsustainably) and then wimps out of taking any personal responsibility.

      Surely those who helped create the problem - or benefitted from its creation - should accept responsibility for fixing it?

      Unlike the Greens, I don’t blame our situation on ‘Big Polluters’ - they were only providing something we demanded of them.

      So I have no difficulty with the concept that I personally should pay for a situation which I personally helped create.

      Or do you somehow live in an alternative Australia where you don’t use electricity or drive a car? (to name but two of the ways we contribute personally to the problem….)

      Anyway, under either party you’ll have to pay something somehow, either through your income tax or through slightly higher prices.

      Given both parties are committed to action, arguing about whether action’s necessary is becoming a little pointless.

      We need to look at the solutions on offer and weigh up which is more likely to deliver the outcomes aimed for.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:58am | 07/06/11

      @Perspehone, so glad you haven’t read anything I’ve had to say in the past on this topic.

      I have stated, several times, in similar topics, I don’t have any problems with fixing the environment.  I have no problem paying for it.  What I have a problem with, is paying for something that will not do what is proposes.  This will NOT help the environment.  It will not reduce emissions.  It will just cause businesses to pass on the tax to people who can’t get cheaper petrol, or electricity, or groceries, because such options doesn’t exist.  There is no cheaper petrol other than what we pay at the bowser.  Our electricity is provided by people who set the price, and switching to soalr requires a significant outlay.  Not everyone can plant plots of vegies in their garden and raise animals for food.

      I didn’t see any point in repeating myself from previous posts, but since you’ve REPLIED to me on previous threads when I’ve stated the exact same things, you have cleared something up for me.  Either you don’t read anything on here - or you’re senile.

      Either one is fine with me.

    • persephone says:

      11:13am | 07/06/11

      Elphaba

      and how do you know this?

      The scientists say it will. The economists say it will.

      Why do you know better than they do?

      No, there isn’t cheaper petrol but there are cars which are cheaper to run, there are cheaper transport options, and there are cheaper fuels (LPG, for example).

      And it’s about encouraging the development of cheaper options and rewarding those who invest in them.

      I repeat: you are unnecessarily strident. You feel threatened personally. It’s very interesting.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:29am | 07/06/11

      @Persephone, I have grave fears for a government that continues to walk down a path opposed by so many of the Australians that voted for her.

      You want to call that threatened, to enable you to continue to see this fuck-up of a government in a pool of golden light, go for it.

    • Bruce of Modbury says:

      12:51pm | 07/06/11

      Pers
      If all the economists in the world laid down in a straight line they would all point in different directions.
      I guess what I am saying is that for every reputable economist that you can find, then I could probably find 100 reputable economists that disagreed with you

    • persephone says:

      01:42pm | 07/06/11

      Bruce

      and yet, strangely, no one can find even one economist who supports Abbott’s plan.

      So they’re able to agree about something….

    • ausspud says:

      03:17pm | 07/06/11

      pers
      the only reason the economists want it is so they can trade and money,the same way they did with mortgages that got us into the gfc.

    • The Badger says:

      09:48am | 07/06/11

      You gotta love it
      Abbott exposed for the hypocrite he is. The win at all costs politician who has NO idea what he stands for other than NO.

      Blathering supporters piling on this stream to defend the indefensible.
      Shit does happens… and it just happened to Abbott .... Again.

    • Dash says:

      10:25am | 07/06/11

      Seen the whole interview have ya Badger? Or just the bit the ALP want you to see?

      “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” - Defend that Badger!

    • Quit badgering says:

      10:53am | 07/06/11

      Interesting spin Badger but I don’t think even you could be that stupid could you?  Maybe you should read what he said again as your comprehension skills are faulty.

    • The Badger says:

      11:01am | 07/06/11

      More blather. from duh dash
      Always at the ready to defend the indefensible.
      Just say NO eh dash? Simple rhetoric appeals to the simple minded like duh dash man.

    • Dash says:

      11:25am | 07/06/11

      @ Badger - “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” - Defend that Badger!

      The ALP will descriminate against families on the basis of income not on the basis of pollution. - Defend that Badger

      Sending unaccompanied children to Malaysia, a country not a signatory to Gillard’s prized UN treaty - Defend that Badger

      “I have an East Timor Solution” Ah no you don’t! - Defend that Badger

      “We’ll provide a coast Guard” where is it? - Defend that badger

      ALP backed builders with there noses in the taxpayer trough - Defend that Badger.

      Yep a lot of shit seems to happen where the ALP are concerned. And yep a lot of morons seem to line up and defend their shit!

    • The Badger says:

      12:19pm | 07/06/11

      Hahahahahaha
      dash with his hands flailing in the air saying - look over there, it’s a bunny Wabbott. Why not break out a few lists dash, One Nation run out of new lists for you to spruik?

    • Dash says:

      12:28pm | 07/06/11

      @the Badger, ha ha ha still got nothing and still add zero to the debate I see! But then again, as you say, you can’t defend the indefensible! And it’s rough of me to expect intelligent argument from someone devoid of grey matter.

    • Christian Real says:

      05:45am | 08/06/11

      Dash
      Julia Gillard did say that “She is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term”  and Julia Gillard did make that statement during an interview with ‘The Australian’, on August 20,2010 @12.00AM
      The story “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”, was witten by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan.
      Carbon Tax is Tony Abbott’s words not Julia’s.
      Dash
      You forgot to have a shot in your comments at two-face Tony “Don’t believe everything I say” Abbott.
      This 2009 interview on aired on the ABC exposes Tony Abbott :
      “Abbott dogged by old carbon comment”
      “Tony Abbott’s past as a climate change ” weather Vane” has come back to haunt him again.”
      “The Opposition Leader has been shown spruiking a carbon tax in an old interview that was aired on ABC Television yesterday.”
      “If you want to put a price on carbon,why not just do it with a simple tax?, Mr Abbott argues.”

    • Christian Real says:

      06:08am | 08/06/11

      Dash
      Julia Gillard did say “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead” and she has kept that promise, it is only Liberal clones like you and others that are echoing Tony “Don’t believe everything I say” Abbott’s diatribe about a carbon tax.
      Prior to the last Federal election Julia Gillard was interviewed by The Australian.
      This Story:, “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise” was written by Paul Kelly and dennis Shanahan, on August 20, 2010 @ 12AM
      This is some of what Julia said.
      “Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term”
      Dash:
      It could not be any clearer than that,unless you,like other Liberal supporters cannot read or you are all are so narrow minded that you only believe what Tony “Don’t believe everything I say Abbott” has to say.

    • Trudy says:

      10:41am | 07/06/11

      Will a Carbon Tax in Australia effect climate change?
      Will a Direct Action plan in Australia effect climate change?
      Isn’t this the goal at the end of the day.
      I’m certainly no expert, and most Aussies aren’t. But I would like to know the answer to both these questions to help me form an opinion. Once I have that sorted then I’d like to ask questions about the cost. But first things first for me.

    • persephone says:

      11:32am | 07/06/11

      Trudy

      Firstly, the aim is to stabilise world temperatures. This is because - even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow - there’s enough greenhouse gas floating around out there to keep temps rising for the next twenty years or so.

      So the aim is to stop this rise getting worse. Without action, the temps will continue to rise (basically forever); with action, it’s hoped that the rise can be kept to 2 degrees.

      Scientists think we (as a species) can cope with a 2 degree rise, although even that comes at a cost - more frequent and more devastating natural disasters, major changes to the way we operate as a society, the loss of species etc etc.

      So that’s what the 5% target’s all about - that’s the minimum commitment Australia should make to do its share in what is a global problem.

      Both solutions on offer aim at achieving this target.

      So we have bipartisan agreement that action is necessary and on the target to be achieved.

      The government’s proposal is for a three year carbon price, charged on certain industries for the greenhouse gases they emit, which will then transition to a carbon trading scheme.

      In the first case, the government sets the price directly, basically through a charge. In the second, the government issues permits to emitters. If they emit more than their permit allows, they have to ‘buy’ permits from others or offset their usage in other ways.

      That creates a market where permits are traded internationally.

      It’s a flexible system, because governments control the number of permits and can thus ‘cap’ emissions.

      In its initial stages (a carbon price) what this means is that companies who pay the tax have two options - raising prices or limiting their emissions.

      If they do the first and not the second, the government gets more revenue from them to tackle climate change in other ways.

      If they do the second, they emit less, and their prices fall (because they lessen the price they pay). Being able to charge lower prices than competitors who don’t lower their emissions then gives them a competitive advantage, which encourages their competitors to also lower their prices.

      The ‘Direct Action’ plan has the same target.

      However, no economist (not one single one in the whole of Australia) thinks it’s a better scheme than Labor’s, and I don’t know of any scientist who does, either.

      This is because it relies on fairly expensive and unproven methods to combat climate change (soil carbon sequestration, for example - not bad in itself, but there’s little evidence it can meet the targets the Coalition sets out) and - instead of ‘punishing’ polluters - uses taxpayers’ money to ‘pay’ them to find solutions.

    • Trudy says:

      12:54pm | 07/06/11

      How can emitters reduce their emissions?  And If we as consumers dictate to emitters what we want, and we’re compensated causing us not to change habits then what’s the point?

    • Aitch B says:

      01:26pm | 07/06/11

      @Trudy

      Stop asking questions! You’ve had your lecture from Persephone, so go to the back of the class, sit down, be quiet and accept everything she tells you as the gospel truth.

      The science is in, the Opposition’s policy stinks and the sun shines out of everything ALP.

    • persephone says:

      01:57pm | 07/06/11

      Trudy

      several ways.

      Firstly, they can take some basic efficiency measures - looking at their manufacturing processes, for example, and investing in more efficient options.

      I was once told by someone on the board of one of the major electricity providers that he came up with a proposal which would have cut their emissions but would involve investing in new infrastructure.

      The board knocked it back, because there was no return to them on the investment.

      Under a carbon price, there would be.

      Secondly, they can look at sourcing energy in other ways. Under a carbon price, the price of ‘normal’ coal fired electricity rises, which makes alternatives more attractive. Eventually, coal fired electricity will be more expensive than alternatives.

      So a company switching to alternatives wins in two ways; it cuts its carbon footprint, and thus doesn’t have to buy as many permits, and (over time) its electricity costs fall.

      Investing in green energy also gives energy providers impetus to develop green energy. There are already predictions that solar will be cheaper than conventional energy sources within a decade.

      There are other potential energy sources we’re not exploring at present because there isn’t an incentive to do so.

      As for compensation providing no incentive to change:

      1. The compensation isn’t directly linked to your bills. If it came directly off your power bill, no, there wouldn’t be an incentive (although there still is for the provider). But you’ll get the compensation in one way and still be getting bills for power etc which are rising.

      Most people, confronted with a rising cost for something, will look at ways of doing it cheaper.

      After all, you then win two ways - you’re paying less and you have more compensation dollars in your pocket.

      2. If you don’t change your ways at all, indirectly there’s more money to the government (because the company you bought the product from has to pay more for its permits if it isn’t getting the price signal from consumers to change its ways), which will be spent in mitigation.

      But ultimately, you’re not the target. Yes, it would be nice if you changed your energy consumption habits, but if the big companies don’t, your efforts won’t go far.

      They’re the ones with the ability to make major changes.

      Residential use of energy isn’t anywhere near as great as its use by industry.

      And ask all the questions you like. Don’t let people like Aitch B censor you.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      02:53pm | 07/06/11

      @pers

      While I understand the whys and wherefores of what the carbon tax will “theoretically” do.

      However I’m still concerned about the reality.

      Let’s use electricty as an example. To the best of my knowledge there is currently no viable clean alternartive to the current way electricty is being produced, apart perhaps from nuclear energy. Electricity companies will not be able to move to “green” energy because there isn’t sufficient technology to support that move.

      Regarding compensation.  A large portion of the population won’t be compensated and while they can search for cheaper providers, again the reality is that they will be a long way off.

    • persephone says:

      03:31pm | 07/06/11

      Wayne

      you’re making the common assumption that moving to clean green energy is an all or nothing thing.

      That is, that we either have coal fired power or green energy, rather than a mix of the two.

      For the foreseeable future, we’ll rely heavily on coal. But every bit of green energy we use instead - even if it’s just around the edges - will help reduce our emissions.

      Of course, the cheaper green energy becomes in relation to coal, the more we’ll use.

      The aim isn’t to replace coal as ‘baseload’  - although that would be nice - but to decrease our reliance on it.

    • Obob says:

      10:49am | 07/06/11

      Here is the root cause of this global warming claptrap and the fake consensus of the settled “science” it spawned

      How To Spot A Leftist/Warmist ”Scientist”

      This is easily done by noting their response to the FACT that there has been no significant global warming since at least 2001.

      A leftist/warmist “scientist” will refuse to even countenance the question, even through gritted teeth, and will desperately try to change the subject.

      Here is a case in point …

      http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8758

      One gets the impression that such an admission would be far too painful to bear for the poor fellow!

      Also, notice how the leftist/warmist ”scientist”, in the audio above, denies the SOARING CO2 emissions coming from China.
      This reveals a distinctly anti-western stance on his part, as is common amongst watermelons.


      BUT,BUT, BUT,
      occassionally a leftist/warmist “scientist” inadvertently lets slip …

      “The “scientific” community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK IT HAS but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
      Phil Jones Email To John Christy, Jul 5 2005

      http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

    • Crap Filter says:

      01:00pm | 07/06/11

      Oh dear. Well past time for Obob to update hisself a little, on the East Anglia emails, on current temp trend etc.

      And -just as an example - on the UK Conservative/Liberal Deomcrat coalition Gov’t plans so recently announced.

      They’re perfectly clear on man made climate change, current science, and the evident continuing warming trend. With a serious carbon budget to match.

      Time to get y’self edjucamated Obob. Leave you to look up the UK stuff, eh. Being as it’s not from the narssty Lefties, you’ll give ‘em a fair shake, I’m sure.  Won’t you!

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:28am | 07/06/11

      As the comments above demonstrate so vividly “the great unwashed people” can’t decide anything. They are firmly welded to their politically opposing poles. “Labor good Coalition bad” or Coalition good labor bad.”
      But then again its all JULIAR’s fault. End of. She made it all up about a month ago. All governments and oppositions are corrupt liars who only want to line their own pockets and take the entire proletariate as suckers. All scientists who support climate change are stupid ignorant university trained idiots who conspire to ... [you fill in the gap] Burning coal does not release carbon dioxide in fact it sequesters it from the atmosphere and makes the world a better place. The world will never run out of food, water, natural resources or anything else. Technology and man’s immense intellect will always provide ... if not God will. There was never a “big bang” but an etherial bloke in a white gown, blue eyes, blond greying hair and a long grey beard made the Earth and all that’s in it over six days about 6 000 years ago for his people the Jews and all Gentiles are just interlopers who will never go to heaven anyway so WTF ...

    • Melrusk says:

      11:50am | 07/06/11

      Hmmm you forgot to mention “The Apple”

    • nossy says:

      11:56am | 07/06/11

      So looks like the next election will be fought out by Abbott the admitted liar and Gillard the sprung liar ! Good grief Australia ! Now is there someone who has principles , who addresses the issues facing Australia today and who would make a fine PM - yes there is and his name is : “Malcolm Turnbull” - PLEASE DONT LEVE YOUR COUP TOO MUCH LONGER MALCOLM !

    • The Badger says:

      12:16pm | 07/06/11

      How embarrassing this footage is for Abbott the weathervane.

      I see people are trying to defend you by saying that it wasn’t written down, only caught on video so some how that doesn’t count, because it only counts if it is written down and signed and sealed with Pell’s ring.

      Run and hide Abbott, the fringe dwelling right wingers will defend your hypocrisy and tell you when it is safe to come out of your hidey hole and resume pushing your policy of NO.

    • Christian Real says:

      08:53am | 08/06/11

      The Badger
      Regardless of Tony Abbott being exposed once again on National Television for his lies and deceit, the Liberal clones will still defend their serial liar to the hilt.
      That fact that it wasn’t written down is a feeble excuse and attempt to condone Tony Abbott’s track record of lies and deceit.
      Tony Abbott said so himself that unless its a carefully prepared written statement it cannot be taken as the gospel truth.
      That means that every time Tony Abbott opens his mouth and makes a verbal statement then he is not telling the gospel truth.
      The only true statement that Tony Abbott seems to have made so far is : “Don’t believe everything I say.”

    • Harquebus says:

      12:21pm | 07/06/11

      There is no such thing as green or alternative energy. Depopulating, consuming less and planting lots and lots of trees are the only things we can do.
      Introducing a new tax ain’t gonna do it Amanda. Peak oil mate, peak oil.

    • Jim says:

      12:48pm | 07/06/11

      Dear Ms Rishworth; “In recent weeks Tony Abbott has stepped up his hysterical tour of dry cleaning services, cereal factories, fish markets and even nappy factories” please tell me what was so hysterical in any of those visits? Or is that the new power-word for this week coming from your faceless overlords and spin merchants?

      You’ve mentioned Abbott 18 times in your piece. Do you have a thing for him or are you doing the whole ALP “let’s divert attention away from our screw-ups by demonising the opposition” thing?

    • RyaN says:

      12:49pm | 07/06/11

      Yay more baseless slander, I guess TA must really be getting up the nose of this incompetent, moronic and pathetic bunch.
      Whats the matter Amanda, afraid of a competent leader?

    • Hiroshi says:

      08:31pm | 07/06/11

      Who you got in mind ryan?

      Turnbull? Rudd?
      What a pathetic moronic sycophant you are.

    • George says:

      02:10pm | 07/06/11

      Could The Leftists/ Warmists Please Provide Their Explanations For The Following Facts

      1.The rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 C° per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, BUT exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it.

      ALSO:

      2. Half of the warming of the last 160 years of just 1ºF, took place between 1910 and 1945, when humans could not have had any effect.

      Any explanations would be very interesting

    • Crap Filter says:

      02:36pm | 07/06/11

      Again?

      A really tired old cut-and-paste, of Moncktons. Again.

      But without sayin so. Again.

      Monckton’s been debunked. Again and again.  Even here.

      Look it up.

    • persephone says:

      03:42pm | 07/06/11

      And here’s a debunking of George’s point 1:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=520

      ‘First we can conclude that Monckton’s statement that 1975-2001 was the fastest warming rate for longer than a decade is absolutely wrong as a much higher rate is demonstrated for 1975-2005 .....’

      ‘Secondly, to compare the three periods ...., the only index which covers that period is Hadley, making his 1.6°C per century number wrong for 1975-2001 as it is actually much higher at 1.78°C per century. Based upon the evidence presented here, he cannot support his statement that 1860-1880 had a similar warming rate as it was demonstratively lower than the 1975-2001 warming rate and nearly half the 1975-2005 rate.’

      ‘Finally, regarding the 1910 to 1940 warm period, evidence presented here suggests that only 1 out of the 4 major indices indicates a rate of warming within 0.25°C per century and none within 0.2°C. His claim that the rates are similar is dubious at best.’

      Interestingly, George’s second point appears - word for word - in several comment threads. I can’t find a source for it, but I’m sure it’s not George’s own work, so he perhaps could provide one.

      However, the idea that humans weren’t doing anything on the emitting side of things in 1910-45 sort of ignores the whole Industrial Revolution.

      London’s ‘pea souper’ fogs were basically carbon based (soot). Factories weren’t constrained by any pollution laws at all.

      We didn’t wait until after WWII to start emitting greenhouse gases. We started doing that during the Industrial Revolution, two hundred years ago.

    • billy says:

      02:11pm | 07/06/11

      I have a few questions for Tony Abbott about his Direct action plan

      1. How many degrees will the world Temperature drop under this plan.
      2. Why should we start this plan if the world is not doing anything.
      3. You said on a video I just watch that we should have a Tax on carbon. Have you changed you mind now.

      Abbott likes to keep people guessing on where his stands on any issues.

    • Greencon says:

      02:15pm | 07/06/11

      No Correlation Between CO2 And Temperature

      Temperature rose rapidly from 1900–1940 when the CO2 increase was modest.
      A small drop in temperature followed between 1940–70 despite CO2 growth being particularly strong at this time.
      Between 1970 and the late 1990s both CO2 and
      temperature increased strongly together.
      THIS IS THE ONLY PERIOD WHERE A CORRELATION EXISTS!
      Over the past 12 years or so temperature has
      been on a plateau despite CO2 continuing to grow.

      If CO2 were as important as many AGW theorists claim, why has temperature not followed a steady upward path?

      Immediately it becomes obvious that the increases of CO2 and of temperature are poorly correlated and that one needs to bring other factors into the story such as the sun, clouds and the way heat is stored in, and distributed around the oceans.

      http://xrl.us/bkqhg8

    • persephone says:

      06:21pm | 07/06/11

      Sigh.

      See response to George’s post above.

      And temperatures haven’t been on a plateau in the last 12 years - we have had three (at least!) of the hottest years on record in that period.

      And it might surprise you to know that scientists know about the sun, clouds and oceans.

    • Richard says:

      02:18pm | 07/06/11

      A Good Question. Any Leftist/Warmist Takers?

      WHY is there a statistically highly significant systematic inverse relationship between the number of stations they selected for ‘official’ use and the average temperatures resulting?
      What average temperature would result from the 62% of stations they removed since around the 1960s - which had the coldest temperature averages and the highest number of stations - up to the present decade - which is officially the warmest and has the least number of stations?

      Anyone with a brain can see that this systematic connection means that either temperature is magically determined by the number of stations or there has been systematic selecting of data which is best described as data fraud”, said Piers.  “This question requires an international inquiry which is independent of any of the organizations involved in this data creation.

      http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=222&c=1

      AND

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPMmCruPAWU )

    • WayneT says:

      02:48pm | 07/06/11

      If we are going to go back to 2009 and drag out a quote from TA, how about some quotes from the current Government;

      Julia Gillard, PM - August 2010, pre-election: “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”

      Wayne Swan, Treasurer - August 2010, pre-election: “What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax”

      Senator Penny Wong, previous Climate Change minister – April 2010 when promoting a ‘trading’ scheme: “A carbon tax is a less efficient way in the Australian government’s view of dealing with this issue”, and: “You know that you can’t have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax”

      Martin Ferguson, Resources minister, said in 2007 that a carbon tax of $30 on local airline flights would: “kill the Australian aviation industry both domestically and internationally”

      My how things change when you become a minority government beholding to the greens!

    • Obob says:

      03:40pm | 07/06/11

      Hey Crap Filter:
      “Monckton’s been debunked. Again and again”

      Come on,
      let’s see you debunk the lack of significant corrrelation between CO2 and temperature, if it’s that obvious.

    • gra gra says:

      04:19pm | 07/06/11

      Abbott supports a carbon tax. He must, otherwise he is a liar. But one difference between him and Gilliard, (there are thousands, thank goodness), is that he will get a pat on the head from George Pell on Sunday, eat a bit of “the body of christ”, drink a bit of the “blood of christ”, and all is forgiven. A liar no longer. And George, a well known protector of deviants, will always be there. Or someone like him. A vote for Abbott is a vote for Opus dei, and of course, for the catholic church. And any politician who has a loyalty, (life-long), to that particularly evil institution can not, by definition, govern democratically. In the catholic church there is no equality, no lack of discrimination, and no charity. Historically they have used and abused whole civilisations, which is hardly the stuff of which democracies are made. Unless the election of a papal leader by a few cardinals without the millions of catholic constituents having a say is Abbott’s version of democracy. I don’t wish to be ruled by Rome. Do you?

    • Booboo says:

      08:29pm | 07/06/11

      He’ll only get a pat from Pell if he kisses Pell’s ring.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      04:32pm | 07/06/11

      I have no comments to make on the article as after reading the blatently biased title I couldn’t be bothered reading any further since it was obvious no relevent information would be forthcoming.

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      04:46pm | 07/06/11

      Abbott is no alternative to labor.Abbott is Abbottobad.
      Abbott is labor or just like labor ( the punch June 6 2011)

    • Carstairs says:

      04:58pm | 07/06/11

      I know Amanda is a well trained Puppet but I do wonder who her puppet master is

    • loulou says:

      07:38pm | 07/06/11

      Amanda Rishworth,  you are so transparent.  Like all warmists, you are uncomfortable with the “alarmist” tag; it’s not cool to be a nervous handwringer,  so you try to handover YOUR FEAR to the sceptics.  NO FEAR going on in the sceptics’ camp.  ALL YOURS

    • Booboo says:

      08:27pm | 07/06/11

      Hahahahahahaha
      Warmists
      Hahahahahahaha
      What will the denialists think of next?

    • loulou says:

      07:42pm | 07/06/11

      Whoever owns the Gershwin comment -    just beautiful

    • Richard says:

      10:46pm | 07/06/11

      Rubbish Amanda, pure speculation. The Direct Action is common sense. It is going to work. In fact, the whole Murray Darling Basin debacle taught us that purely Market-based mechanisms are not the way to go when it comes to environmental issues and that Direct Action mechanisms (like the latest Murray Darling Basin legislation that passed just last week) are a lot more sensible and pragmatic.

      You are hysterically scare-mongering about the “$10 Billion worth of abatement that will be bought on the international market”, that is rubbish. Not 1 cent of tax payers money will be given to those kleptocrats by the incoming government. How do I know? Because the current Opposition will promise not too, because we the people will not stand for it. WE don’t have to waste money if WE don’t won’t to. And we don’t. Politicians must listen to us, or they will taste electoral failure.

      Yes, Prime Minister Abbott will implement sensible and effective Direct Action environmental policies, but his government will not spend 1 cent of taxpayer’s money buying abatement permits on international markets: we do not want our tax dollars to be fleeced and rorted in this way.

    • Obob says:

      10:43am | 08/06/11

      The Leftist/Warmist Hypocrisy Files: Slash Your Emissions They Said As They Boarded The Jet
      June 7 2011

      Corinne Grant tells the Say Yes warmists that wicked polluters must be punished:

      Comedian and Melbourne rally MC Corinne Grant said a carbon tax must be introduced this year.

      “We need to try and combat the scaremongering coming from our largest polluters,” Ms Grant said.

      Corinne Grant then steps on a polluting plane and tweets fans she’s off:

      Right. I’m buggering off to France for ten weeks.
      (Or, as the French say, ‘Je suis boogerrang erff’. Au revoir!

      Leftist/warmist GetUp boss Simon Sheikh did the same.
      In the morning of the rallies, he told crowds we had to slash our emissions. By nightfall, he was on a jet to the US.


      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/politicians-blamed-for-deadly-fires-floods/story-e6frf7jo-1226069763959

      http://twitter.com/#!/corinne_grant

    • George says:

      11:30am | 08/06/11

      Climate Models Go Cold

      The whole idea that CO2 is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.


      The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

      I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

      Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

      Let’s set a few things straight.

      The whole idea that CO2 is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.

      But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate “scientists”, now outrageously maintain the fiction that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.

      Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra CO2 is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

      The disagreement comes about what happens next.

      The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?

      Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

      This is the core idea of every official climate model:
      For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

      That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

      Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year.

      The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.

      During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

      This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

      At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science.

      In TRUE science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.

      If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.

      But official climate “science” ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

      There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

      It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

      The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.

      The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680.

      Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our CO2 emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had.

      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

    • Obob says:

      12:18pm | 08/06/11

      Don’t Know And Don’t Care If It Will Actually Affect Climate!!
      June 8 2011

      Sinclair Davidson notes this brilliant exchange in a Senate estimates hearing on June 1:

      Senator JOYCE: Just out of curiosity, Dr Nigel Ray calls it ‘climate change modelling’. So, of all the other things, did you model how much the climate was going to change; and, if so, how much will it change?

      Ms Quinn (General Manager, Macroeconomic Modelling Division): Perhaps I could take that question. The Treasury looks at the economic implications of climate change mitigation, and we have been very clear about that in terms of the skill sets and the types of analysis that we look at. We do not look at the science of climate change. We have not looked at the implications of climate impacts on the Australian economy.

      Senator JOYCE: Do any of these models give any sort of prediction about any sort of change in the climate?

      Ms Quinn: That is a question you would have to ask a climate scientist.

      Senator JOYCE: Why do you call it ‘climate change modelling’, if you have no idea of what it is going to do to the climate?

      Ms Quinn: We call it ‘climate change mitigation modelling’.

      Senator JOYCE: So how much is it mitigating the climate by?

      Senator Wong: Senator, those questions should go to Climate Change.

      Senator JOYCE: I am just curious. It just seems peculiar to go through all of these things and they do not actually do anything for the climate.

      http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/06/07/from-hansard/

    • Obob says:

      12:31pm | 08/06/11

      ROTFLMAO

      Barnaby Joyce on warmist/leftist Swan ....

      “Well Mr Swan has told us that under his modelling with a carbon tax, employment will grow, gross national income will grow and if he had been pressed, no doubt he would have told us the dahlias would grow and Pinocchio would have been truly excited.”

    • Ray says:

      10:43am | 09/06/11

      Alarmists continue with their fear campaign, when they have no compelling scientific evidence to substantiate their human-caused global warming hypothesis.

      They should wake up to the fact that there is no scientific or economic justification for taking any carbon dioxide emission reduction action.

      This is not to say that governments should not plan for action to adapt to natural climate changes, or to cope with extreme weather events.

    • James says:

      03:44pm | 09/06/11

      Tony Abbotts plan:

      1) Become PM by any means necessary
      2) Come up with a plan for Australia.

    • Obob says:

      11:46am | 10/06/11

      Leftists/Warmists Fear The Debate That Would Expose Their Sneaky AGW Scam
      June 9 2011
      I’ve noticed the same cowardly tactic that Perth radio’s Howard Sattler describes:

      THE Gillard Government and its carbon tax supporters are running scared.

      How else can I explain the reaction of its chief climate change adviser, Prof. Ross Garnaut, to my request for an interview on the subject.

      During the negotiations my producer was grilled about my views on the proposed impost and global warming.

      Told I was a sceptic, the response was:“That changes everything.”

      Needless to say, the interview did not materialise.

      Snubbing talkback radio commentators who disagree with the Government’s policy is one ingredient in the campaign to derail opposition to the tax.

      This is a deliberate tactic to avoid awkward questions, marginalise sceptics and pretend there’s no debate. What you should conclude is not just that these people have no real confidence in their arguments.

      You should also conclude that every time you hear a journalist interview a government mouthpice or scientist on global warming, that this is one journalist who is trusted not to ask a hard question.

      http://www.perthnow.com.au/opinion/sinister-element-to-carbon-tax-campaign/story-e6frg41u-1226071626157?site=PerthNow

    • George says:

      12:22pm | 10/06/11

      Politicians And Whitehall Mandarins Are Pandering To Global Warming Alarmists
      “We must stop pandering to climate scaremongers”.
      June 10 2011
      Turnbull is always worth listening to on global warming, as we all know:

      Politicians and Whitehall mandarins are pandering to global warming ‘alarmists’ and consigning Britain to a future of inflated fuel bills and economic misery, the former head of the Civil Service warned last night.

      Lord Turnbull – who served Tony Blair as Cabinet Secretary from 2002 to 2005 – accused MPs and civil servants of failing to challenge the ‘climate change consensus’.

      He suggested that by blindly following the green agenda, the Government had hit hard-working families with a range of costly policies…

      ‘It is regrettable that the UK Parliament has proved so trusting and uncritical of the (global warming) narrative and so reluctant to question the economic costs being imposed in pursuit of decarbonisation,’ he said…

      ‘From our politicians we need open-mindedness, more rationality, less emotion and less religiosity; and an end to alarmist propaganda and to attempts to frighten us and our children.

      http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/3178-ministers-fall-for-climate-folly-warns-ex-civil-service-chief.html

    • George says:

      03:56pm | 10/06/11

      There is a difference between SCIENTIFIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY and ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

      Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth.
      Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere.
      This is well accepted across the scientific community.

      Alarmist global warming theory, on the other hand, entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high.

      This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

      The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc.

      Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter