The carbon debate is getting murderous

acotrel says:

07:04am | 03/03/11

I’ve heard it suggested that Australia is becoming just another state of the US.  When our politicians compare our PM to dictators like Gaddafi, and Bob Brown and Tony Windsor get deaths threats over the ‘price on carbon’ - feels like we might be living in Arizona?  Tony Abbott’s ravings about a ‘carbon tax’ are clearly based on conjecture!  The way he is behaving shows just how dangerous to democracy this chicken brain can be!

acotrel says:

07:09am | 03/03/11

Eric there is the matter of semantics in Gillard’s ‘LIE’ The construction Tony Abbott CHOSE to put on her pre-election comments is that ‘a price on carbon’ is a ‘gret big new tax on everything’. If you wish to cling desperately to that sort of bullshit, because it might justify your claim that the election was unfair, and Australians really wanted a pugnacious idiot as leader, you are as silly as he is!

Seano says:

07:25am | 03/03/11

These smears are desperation tactics by the Liberal machine. The faceless men have seen the polls, and they’re not happy. They’ll do anything to change the subject from Abbott’s lies to some distraction.

Sorry Erick, yours was just such a silly comment when there are members of the LNP are comparing Gillard to Gaddafi, that I had to point out it out. And particularly when Abbott’s own poll results are awful and Turnbull is starting to look like a serious threat to Abbott and Gillard.

acotrel says:

08:14am | 03/03/11

@Seano
‘And particularly when Abbott’s own poll results are awful and Turnbull is starting to look like a serious threat to Abbott and Gillard. ‘

Gillard seems to know better than most of us what’s going on behind the scenes in the Liberal Party.  Twice recently during question time she’s mentioned what Turnbull has said about Abbott.  Turnbull simply laughs and looks embarrassed!

Bonestar says:

08:16am | 03/03/11

Acotrel, who is more dangerous to democracy? Someone who’s fighting for what the majority of Australians want or a Juliar who just does what her Green masters tell her to do regardless of the consequences to the Australian people. Carbon Tax is BS it will change nothing and your a fool for being so gullible.

Joan says:

08:42am | 03/03/11

Acotrel… Part of USA .... no this is 2011…. Australia is no longer buy Made in Australia but Made in China…. with massive China investment in our agriculture and mining sectors and other and big IOU to China courtesy Gillard… in 2011 Australia is a state of China.

simon says:

08:44am | 03/03/11

Yes too true Erick, they will lie, deceive, spin, use rhetoric and hyperbole to fool the Australian public. This is the standard MO of Labor and the Greens.

ZSRenn says:

08:53am | 03/03/11

I agree Erik. This just reeks of the same argument that has been going around the forums

“Its better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”

Mal has tried to cleverly disguise it but reading this you can see the same methodology.

They have been following the same Hymn book. I said this yesterday; The Labor machine is desperate to swing this argument away from Julia’s lie and the fact that this tax will have no affect on CC. Bring on March 23 I say and look for me wearing my ZSRenn T-shirt in the crowd because it’s going to be big one.

Crowd that is not my T-Shirt!

Tomorrow will prove my point but I think Mal knows it would be journalistic suicide to bring the never ever spiel to the argument.

http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com

undertow says:

08:59am | 03/03/11

Wow, so Sophie Mirabella , Eric Abetz and Peter Dutton are actually Labor moles posing as Liberal MPs. You heard it from Erick first folks.

We’re a little short on the usual anti-militant-feminist rhetoric today though Erick. Care to elucidate?

John says:

09:29am | 03/03/11

Maybe we could be part of the US… then we wouldn’t have a carbon tax… no major emitters do… hence the sheer pointlessness and irrational zealotry of a tiny nation like Australia implementing one, which won’t make a lick of difference to total emissions and thus the environment we all share.

Joan says:

10:04am | 03/03/11

The desperate Backstabber and liar Gillard is having a. hard time saving face….....day after day the electorate tell the pollies that they will will not be treated as fools and be lied to blatantly this just after knifing knifing of   peoples PM Rudd….. .... the diversion by Labor to focus Liberal semantics is just a ploy…. to save backstabbers Juliars lying face.

acotrel says:

10:12am | 03/03/11

@John
’ which won’t make a lick of difference to total emissions and thus the environment we all share. ‘

Just saying that, doesn’t make it the truth!  And you know it’s a LIE! Seems to me you lot only get into high dudgeon when the ‘lies’ come from the Labor party.  You’re not so particular that you won’t get into it yourself?

James Hunter says:

10:20am | 03/03/11

Erick,
Sorry bub but it is the Liberal parties smears and their desparate leader that are the problem Government at any price and by any means. Very degrading but a great way of showing what kind of people the present batch of liberals are. I do specificately exclude Malcolm Turnbull from that pack.

Robert Kennedy says:

10:21am | 03/03/11

Bonestar, I think I might have an answer for you that you may not have considered. The biggest danger to democracy is the leader who is spineless and only ever does what a clear majority of voters wants them to do.

Not every good decision is popular, but plenty of bad decisions are. Go back through history and you’ll find examples of both; to give you one of each - emancipation for black people was unpopular when Lincoln decided to end slavery, and a majority of British once endorsed Neville Chamberlain’s appeasing of Nazi Germany.

The fact is that sometimes the people can be wrong. That idea sounds like anathema to democracy, but I contend that accepting that fact, and being prepared to fight for people’s interests when they themselves cannot recognise them is the heart and soul of a successful democracy. You don’t vote for a leader to represent your views; you vote for a leader to represent your interests.

As to how that applies to this situation, well, I’d hesitate to make comparisons with Gillard - I suspect that in this case she might just be wrong, but for all the right reasons. But it also bodes very badly for a government led by Tony Abbott, whose political conviction appears to be purchasable with votes. He seems to have confused courage with aggression; for all his zeal and passion, as opposition leader he has not once taken a protracted and visible stand on an issue that he believes in that the voters do not. Malcolm Turnbull once said of the man that he is a weathervane who goes through multiple positions on the same issue; inevitably ending up facing the path of least resistance. I sincerely hope for Australia’s sake that he proves to be a braver PM than he has an Opposition Leader.

Gregg says:

10:42am | 03/03/11

@Acca,
No doubt with your own ravings you never review what you have posted and seeing as you do not recognise it, perhaps someone close to you needs to address your dementia.

Dissident says:

10:50am | 03/03/11

Acotrel - Tony Abbott has a chicken brain? Are you a Rhodes scholar?

Robert Kennedy - Ordinarily I would agree that politicians are often required to stay the course on unpopular decisions but explicitly saying before an election that you will not introduce a carbon tax, and then a mere few months later doing a complete about face is not smart - particularly when the science is far from settled. NB - Lincoln isn’t the hero you think he is - perhaps you should do a little research about him. He has some dark spots, that’s for sure! Slavery is one of many reasons for the war starting, but it is also a posthumous justification for what was an incredibly bloody war. Painting the Civil War as noble rather than savage suits people quite nicely.

As for the carbon tax, Australia shouldn’t take the lead. Our emissions are just too small to make a material difference. I do understand the idea of setting a good example to other countries, but can somebody perhaps provide a suggestion on when big countries (ie. US, China, UK, France, etc) have followed an Australian idea. Don’t tell me about lawnmowers and utes either, tell me about ideas, not inventions.

dovif says:

10:55am | 03/03/11

Acrotel and Seano

Are u 2 living in an alternate universe, because every poll I have seen recently shows the Coalition at 45% (almost ½ of Australia would vote for them) and they show the ALP at 35% (Almost 2/3 of Australia would not vote for them)
So if there was a person worried about the Polls, it would be Gillard, and rightfully so. Because the ALP knifed Kevin Rudd, when he had Poll results far better then Gillard had been getting.
So please come back to the real world

Bonestar says:

11:43am | 03/03/11

Robert Kennedy, maybe Abbott just makes sense and he’s on the same page as many Australian’s. Maybe he goes for the popular policies because that’s what he and many other Australian’s believe. Maybe he doesn’t have to make the unpopular policies because he doesn’t owe anything to Unions, Greens or Independents just the Australian people

Why give me a history lesson and then say it doesn’t compare to Juliar what was the point of that? She is mega wrong and she’s fooled some into thinking it’s for the right reason. The only interests she cares about seem to be her own.

ZSRenn says:

11:46am | 03/03/11

Well done Erik you expose the machine in operation.

@ actoral swings the debate away from carbon to race and then goes on with a bit of his own better the devil you know.
@Undertow tries once more to swing the debate and then throws in a personal insult.
Then @ Bobby Kennedy throws in a little bit more “The devil you know” going so far as to invoke Godwins law.

They dare not enter the foruth relm of their non-argument as they know it will shred to pieces with a multitude of links but this has been the same pattern since this debate started.

No substance Just spin.

Troy says:

12:26pm | 03/03/11

acotrel, I will wait with baited breath to see your theory tested at the next election. Judging by the white hot anger with Gillards lie, and the massive poll slump, she wont be contesting the next election anyway. But you green voters are all the same, you can use all the colorfull language you like when you attack Abbott, but scream like little children when a bit comes back on you leaders. Suk it up princess.

John says:

12:32pm | 03/03/11

“Just saying that, doesn’t make it the truth!  And you know it’s a LIE! Seems to me you lot only get into high dudgeon when the ‘lies’ come from the Labor party.  You’re not so particular that you won’t get into it yourself? “

Calm down alcotrel, try to relax… no I don’t know it’s a lie actually… Australia could cut emissions by 100% and it wouldn’t make any difference to the atmosphere or temperature increases, as any reduction we make will be replaced by an increase from China (burning our coal btw) in about 10 minutes.  Make sense?

This tax is non-pragmatic zealotry, which is why it doesn’t wash out here in the real world.  It’d be a valid idea if the whole world signed up to it.  We tried that at Copenhagen.

undertow says:

01:27pm | 03/03/11

So ZSRenn, I take it you see nothing ironic in the fact that Erick is accusing Labor of smearing while simultaneously, Mirabella et al likening our incumbent PM to a tyrannical despot that is currently murdering his population is perfectly justifiable?

As for personal insults… If pointing out something that happens here on a regular basis for all to see is insulting, then guilty as charged. Who needs to provide substance in an argument that is clearly bereft of it, regardless of the nature of the “foruth relm of their non-argument”, whatever that may mean.

ZSRenn says:

02:33pm | 03/03/11

@nossy sorry undertow. If that’s the spin you want to put on it ok. I don’t necessarily like the comment because it can be spun that way.

However you and I both know that the intent was to liken Julia, and obviously yourself to Gadaffi for her inability to hear the mob outside the door growling with discontent at this tax.  You know full well they do not accuse her of such heinous crimes.

This anger is mostly because she said 5 days out from the election that it was not going to happen whilst she was leading the Government. Also because we still after a week have no firm figures on what it is going to cost and probably never will until it is implemented and we see how businesses are affected by higher operating costs.

Then to make matters worse she and her supporters flub around with “It was always on the table!” Impounding the lie with what appears to very deceitful language. I can see and I hope you will also one day see that

“Australians are smarter than this and don’t like to be patronized.” PM Bob Brown Monday the 28th of March.

acotrel says:

02:39pm | 03/03/11

@Dissident.
‘Acotrel - Tony Abbott has a chicken brain? Are you a Rhodes scholar?’

I’ve often wondered about that.  Perhaps Rhodes Scholars get their degrees by filling in the form on the back of the Weeties packet? Bob Hawke was also a Rhodes Scholar, and he was almost as bloody stupid!

Jim says:

02:58pm | 03/03/11

acotrel - surely you can’t say you suscribe to ‘democracy’ while supporting a ridiculous socialist like Gillard??!!!

undertow says:

03:10pm | 03/03/11

@ZSRenn. Intent in their meaning is irrelevant. People are dying at the hands of Gaddafi, so any attempt to draw any kind of comparison or to use Gaddafi as some kind of analogy for someone’s actions, is despicable and should be condemned.

I don’t necessarily agree with the price on CO2 the way it has been presented, but my concern is in the implementation and effectiveness in reducing emissions, how success can be monitored and what we can do to ensure that if and when the time comes, we are not left high and dry by our failure to act in the past.

Bonestar says:

03:14pm | 03/03/11

Persephone, the current treasury couldn’t count to ten on their fingers. Australia could reduce it’s carbon out put by switching to nuclear energy which is clean and reliable,  we could also end immigration as the more people that live here the more pollution we create.

ZSRenn says:

03:42pm | 03/03/11

@actoral I laid down figures earlier this week for the amount of carbon emissions this tax might save us and they were left uncontested. Funny thing is if anybody had taken the time to do the math they would have seen I was wrong. I was doing the calculations again for a reply to you and found out I had made an error I am sorry and swear I did not mean to mislead the forum. I have included my working this time for scrutiny.

I am using the short billion scales as is used in Australian media and government. My Carbon figures come from every greens good friend The Ecologist (See link below)

19.3metric tones/capita is
19.3 x 22,000,000 = 424,600,000 metric tones/annum

I will be generous and say this tax would save us 10%
424,600,000 x 10% = 42,460,000 metric tones /annum

The world producers 29,029,000,000 metric tones
42,460,000/ 29,029,000,000 x 100/1 = 0.15% of global emissions

The Green machine keeps telling us that we must reduce carbon emissions to 5% by 2030 so I will use their figures 5% of our total usage is

21230000 metric tones or 0.073% of global emissions

On further study one will notice that this tax is only a first step in reducing our emissions and the Green machine has many more tasks it has to enact to meet this 5% So lets be generous that this first step will achieve 1% of their hoped for target.

Or 0.015% of global emissions

I call that minuscule and it still leaves us as the 8th largest producer / capita

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/383922/carbon_emissions_the_world_in_2010.html

PaulB says:

03:59pm | 03/03/11

Turnbull and Gillard are both ultimately together on the side of selling us out to the UN global Governance by treaty project.  It’s not for nothing that Turnbull is known internally as the “Member for Goldman Sachs”.

Seano says:

04:37pm | 03/03/11

@dovif - Do you know how the system works champ? Have a look at the w party prefered. It’s a coin flip which has been swining back and forth for months. Abbott though remains unpopular and that will likely be the difference for many swing voters as it was last time around. Welcome to the real world.

Andrew says:

09:42pm | 03/03/11

“emancipation for black people was unpopular when Lincoln decided to end slavery”

Actually Lincoln did not give a toss about slavery when the Civil War broke out. He was concerned with (and rightly so considering the times) about the break up of the union.

Ange says:

11:18am | 04/03/11

Erick, are you reading the same article as me?  The smears are being dealt by the Liberals!  It’s the Libs who are bringing up the Gaddafi likenesses and equating Julia’s actions to murder.  Perhaps you’d better put your glasses on and grab your ear trumpet, because methinks you aren’t hearing or reading things clearly!

On another note - everyone wants to make SUCH a big deal about Julia lying - GOD FORBID!  How quickly everyone forgets a little man with bushy eyebrows saying his government will “never ever” introduce a GST.  A few short years later and look what he did!  And the GST was much more of a life changing tax (which affected just about EVERYTHING) than the carbon tax will ever be.

Grow a brain peoples!!!!!  Every Liberal supporter who calls Julia Gillard a liar but who preaches how wonderful the Howard government was is a hypocrite.

Bruno says:

12:02pm | 04/03/11

All i want to know is does Erick or Eric have a job? Every article I read first blogger Erick. Mate seriously get a punching bag.

Ironside says:

07:04am | 03/03/11

Congy is that as opposed to the ALP relies on union thugs green preferences and independents to maintain power? Both sides have said some pretty disgraceful things over the last few days but you cant go past the performance of the Prime Minister who in question time refuses to actually answer a question and somehow tries to spin “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” into saying people knew what they were getting.
Its all well and good to accuse the LNP of dog whistle politics, but the ALP isn’t even being that subtle. They know they are under siege from the greens on the left and they are beholden to them in both the lower and soon to be upper house as well and so they pander to the vocal minority that will keep them in power rather than the majority of the Australian people.
Again let me say I don’t condone or promote any sort of violence towards or intimidation of any of our elected representatives, but the level of anger being directed towards the ALP the independents and the greens is almost unprecedented and rather than dismissing that anger as the response of ignorant rednecks in tin foil hats the ALP had better look hard at the response and realise that maybe they should have actually come out with a fully formed and costed policy that they could have argued for, rather than a vague promise to make everything more expensive for no fixed environmental benefit while appearing completely beholden to the greens.

acotrel says:

08:09am | 03/03/11

@Ironside
‘Congy is that as opposed to the ALP relies on union thugs green preferences and independents to maintain power? ‘

‘Union thugs’  What were the two guys who Eric Campbell sent around to bash unionists in the thirties?  And which spelled the end of the New Guard when they got thrown in the slammer?  THUGS - the conservatives were the very first to use them in Australian politics!!!

Bris Jack says:

08:51am | 03/03/11

Take off the blinkers, Oakeshott is head of NBN inquiry.

PTom says:

08:59am | 03/03/11

Ironside,
Do you mean a policy that is worked out before going to the public like the Mining tax or a policy which details are worked out with the public. So which is it the LNP can’t have it both ways?

ZSRenn says:

09:26am | 03/03/11

Bi polar debate by the LNP Chongy?  Ya got to be kidding me!

Here we have a Carbon Tax that will do nothing to reduce Carbon

A Carbon tax once collected apparently refunded in full back to the people.

A carbon tax that will be added to the bottom lines of companies which we are told will not increase prices because of increased costs.

A Carbon Tax that we were promised would not be introduced while the ranga was leader.

A Carbon Tax that now has Green Bob Brown with one member of the lower house as our PM.

The whole damn thing is bi polar.

Adam Diver says:

11:38am | 03/03/11

Talking of Bi-Polar…

From Mal’s piece

“Politicians on both sides must be careful they are not encouraging those with a delicate hold on reality. The consequences could be violent.”

Title of the piece

“The carbon debate is getting murderous”

The worse part is that no-one knows what a politician says until its reported. If the left were sincerely worried about acts of violence (I am sure they would not make tenious links to the Gibbons atrocity in the states….oops, too late on that one) they could moderate what they report. Mal you can’t complain about vitriol whilst you publish an opinion piece emphasising it.

Also it has taken me while, (having a bad day) but this piece is exaclty as Erick portrays, another attempt to silence the debate. Without increased vitriol there is no media coverage, and no coverage means the issue will just slip under the rug like so many before it. So its good to see so many reporters ask for less attacks, because I am sure they will dutifully report all the finer details of the policy involved, just like they have done so well in the past. So good on you Mal, I say lets talk civily and ensure issues get no media coverage. Now who would that benefit? Hmmmmmmmmm…..... its a tough one

Jim says:

02:30pm | 03/03/11

Chongy, I doubt the average Lib voter - or indeed any non-rusted on Labor voter - at this stage would care if it was Abbott, Turnbull, Hockey or even Costello if he came back leading us to the next election. The only thing that matters is that it is soon and Gillard gets dumped.

persephone says:

06:56am | 03/03/11

Another giveaway line was Greg Hunt saying that soil carbon should be included, because it was recognised as a method of climate change abatement in the international trading market.

Yet people on this site keep asking what the point of action in Australia is if the rest of the world isn’t doing anything.

Clearly - for an international trading market to exist - other countries ARE doing something.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:39am | 03/03/11

persephone

Please provide details of what those two massive polluters, China and India are doing.  With reputable links.
Thank you in advance.

Richard says:

08:48am | 03/03/11

Indeed, the European Emissions Trading Scheme has been rorted and corrupted to badly that they’ve recently been forced to suspend the whole program.

As I’ve said before, it is just inevitable that our trading scheme will become hijacked as well, and used to line the pockets of fat cat investment banksters (‘financial terrorists’ in Max Keiser’s words), ripping off Australian household’s in the process, so it must be opposed by all intelligent Australians.

If the Liberals had proposed this same scheme, I would still be opposing it, but since you are so unquestioningly dumb and lemmingly eager to push the Labor line ad nauseum persephone, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue at all.

FFS says:

09:10am | 03/03/11

Richard says:08:48am | 03/03/11

If the Liberals had proposed this same scheme, I would still be opposing it, but since you are so unquestioningly dumb and lemmingly eager to push the Labor line ad nauseum persephone, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue at all.

rAbbott DID propose this scheme in 2009.

PTom says:

09:41am | 03/03/11

@Tony,

China will have a price on Carbon in May 2012.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1806070/reports-china-impose-carbon-tax-2012

India already has.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/india-to-raise-535-million-from-carbon-tax-on-coal.html

Sam says:

09:44am | 03/03/11

And here Tony is where we get to the apex of the green lie. Activities in Europe and China with renewable energy is the need for energy security due to an over reliance on foreign supplies. European PM’s have already admitted to this due to Russia using gas supplies as a weapon to get their way. But of course the Green lies will persist. PS interesting how 9 out of 10 USA states that have carbon tax are in the process or rescinding it due to the corruption it creates, etc.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

10:06am | 03/03/11

PTOM
 
For a start, that Indian article says it is a tax on production of coal. More analogous to our proposed mining tax, really.

Richard says:

11:30am | 03/03/11

@ FFS~ that was Malcolm Turnbull, not Tony Abbott. I wonder who’s best interests Turnbull had in mind in that instance, the Australian tax-payer or Goldman Sachs.

@PTom~ what, China is putting a price on carbon for the grand sum of $3 per tonne? Whoop dee doo da.

persephone says:

07:01am | 03/03/11

Angry Australians ought to get educated then.

For starters, noone is imposing a tax on YOU.  Any tax will be on carbon producing companies.

If you think that’s a tax on you, turn the tables arouind: under the proposed mining tax, companies were going to have their taxes reduced by 2%. No one was running around then saying that this meant families were getting a tax cut.

Quite rightly, people recognised that a tax cut for business was not the same as a tax cut for individuals.

Using exactly the same logic, a tax on companies is thus not a tax on individuals.

In fact, you will probably get a tax cut (the scheme is predicated around the average family being better off, not worse off, and one way to achieve this is through income tax cuts).

Certainly your income will rise more than you pay out, which will help you with your budget bottomline.

Warren says:

08:06am | 03/03/11

When did Australian’s become such a bunch of whingers? We are one of the very wealthiest countries in the world per capita. According to Government stats we spend twice as much per person on gambling than we do on food. Checkout the unemployment levels in Europe and the US to get an idea of what happening in the “real world”.

Paul C says:

08:07am | 03/03/11

goods point - makes you wonder what other promises are going to be broken.

L. says:

08:10am | 03/03/11

“In fact, you will probably get a tax cut (the scheme is predicated around the average family being better off, not worse off, and one way to achieve this is through income tax cuts).”

So Pers, you can garantee us 100% that any tax cut or “compenstation” will cover 100% of any carbon price initiated cost of living increase?

I mean, to give that degree of reliability, you must have read the legislation..?? Legislation which I understand has yet to be written..??

Bonestar says:

08:23am | 03/03/11

Persephone, don’t think you’ve looked at the big picture, the tax will be passed on to every consumer and every business right down to the poor bloke that mows lawns for a living. If you believe in man made global warming thats fine but if you have an ounce of intelligence you must realise this tax will change nothing, there are more effective ways to reduce carbon emmissions. Carbon Tax is BS you ought to get educated.

Sherlock says:

08:53am | 03/03/11

persephone says: 07:01am | 03/03/11

For starters, noone is imposing a tax on YOU.  Any tax will be on carbon producing companies.

I don’t think for a second that you actually believe this. While you’re obviously there to push the labor line I have never thought you’re dumb.

However stupid statements like this simply shred the any microscopic remaining bits of credibility you may have

Andrew says:

09:28am | 03/03/11

Pers,

I find it so hard to bite my tongue when you write such ludicrous comments.

No-one is imposing a tax on YOU….. um yes they are.

Only the polluters will be taxed .... um ok, and then they will pass on the cost to consumers (yes those people who aren’t having a tax on them), who will then be compensated by the government but they are going to be better off because the government is going to give them more money????? Um…. so who ends up paying???

No the company… they pass on the cost.
Not the consumer .... they are better off because the government is paying them more than they get charged.

So who pays Pers.
No-one?
Why have it at all??
I smell a rat.
And yet we will happily continue to export coal to china hand over fist whilst eschewing nuclear power.

Truly intriguing.

Jack says:

09:52am | 03/03/11

Typical Green/Labor logic Persphone for the brain dead. If taxes are increased on businesses by carbon tax (transport costs up, electricity costs up, etc, etc) it will result in increase prices to the consumer as night follows day. To try to argue that thew costs won’t flow on to the consumer shows your total lack of credibility on this topic. PS you are definitely earning you 30 pieces of silver from your masters today.

John says:

09:55am | 03/03/11

“If you think that’s a tax on you, turn the tables arouind: under the proposed mining tax, companies were going to have their taxes reduced by 2%. No one was running around then saying that this meant families were getting a tax cut.

Quite rightly, people recognised that a tax cut for business was not the same as a tax cut for individuals.

Using exactly the same logic, a tax on companies is thus not a tax on individuals.”

Persephone… firstly your citing of features of the mining tax is extremely selective.

Secondly… “turn the tables around”?? Wake up… if extra cost is imposed on a business, they’re going to pass it on to maintain profit margin.

It doesn’t work the other way.  In some cases operational cost savings may be partly re-invested in price as a lever for increasing total sales, but no business will ever extend treatment that to tax cuts – particularly in the current environment where, thanks to a fiscally incompetent government, company tax legislation is so fluid and unpredictable.  May not be completely fair, but that’s the way it is.  Business by nature is about maximising returns.  If anyone in this government had ever spent a day in business they might have their heads around it a little better.

Like any socialist, bureaucracy-loaded wealth redistribution scheme, it sounds good in fluffy make-believe world.  Apply some real world realities however and ridiculous “logic” like that falls apart quickly.

Your post is an illustration of the unfortunate fact that those on the Left generally just don’t get business.  It’s probably why most of them end up on the Left in the first place.

persephone says:

10:09am | 03/03/11

L

all parties to the drawing up of the deal have accepted this as a key principle.

Of course, the legislation may be different, but we’re arguing on the basis of what’s on the table at present - anything else is speculation.

Bonestar

and Treasury takes all that into its costings (as indeed does Garnaut).

Please outline the more effecitive ways to reduce carbon emissions. I haven’t heard of any.

Sherlock and Andrew

a tax on you is when the ATO directly takes money from your paypocket.

An indirect tax is when the ATO taxes something you personally buy.

Properly speaking, this isn’t a tax at all, but a price which companies who emit carbon will have to pay for that priviledge - so more correctly, it is a government license (similar to, say, a taxi permit).

Yes, companies will pass this price on as a cost of doing business, as they do with other costs associated with doing business.

Strangely enough, however, we don’t usually hear cries of “My taxes have gone up!” when governments impose additional costs on business.

As I said, if you really thought that, you wouid be supporting the government’s mining tax, because that gives businesses a tax break of 2%, which obviously, using your logic, means we all get a tax break of 2%.

We don’t; the businesses do. If they then cut their prices because of this, we still don’t say that we’ve had a tax break.

You won’t pay a carbon tax, or a carbon price. Businesses may (if they don’t reduce their emissions). You will get a rise in income, most likely through a direct tax cut.

If companies wish to reduce the amount they pay for carbon, they will do this by adopting alternative sources of energy, and will thus be able to cut the prices they charge customers.

If customers wish to cut down on their energy usage, they will do this (and there are a multitude of ways they can do so very cheaply) and thus pocket the increased disposable income they’re receiving.

If it’s a tax, it’s a strange one, because ultimately the government doesn’t want anyone to pay it.

Matt says:

11:06am | 03/03/11

“If you think that’s a tax on you, turn the tables arouind: under the proposed mining tax, companies were going to have their taxes reduced by 2%. No one was running around then saying that this meant families were getting a tax cut.”

You know whats really funny? Reducing company tax will in turn reduce imputation credits attached to dividends paid out to shareholders. This will mean that any “tax reduction” will be lost when the dividend is declared in the individual’s ITR. So much for a tax cut eh? Its more a delay of tax payment when you track the franking credits through to the shareholders. Also, for all those franking credits sitting in companies where 30% tax has been paid? 2% will become worthless, because you cannot frank a dividend past 100%. So in some cases, individuals will be worse off (franking credits will be trapped in the company and unable to be utilised).

“Certainly your income will rise more than you pay out, which will help you with your budget bottomline. “

Promise the world and deliver bugger-all eh perse? Sums up Labor well. FYI, it will probably be done through a tax offset or some such. It will not be a “tax cut”, otherwise Labor cannot target households with an income less than $120,000 (or whatever arbitrary figure they choose). I am also skeptical that individuals paying zero tax (i.e. the most vulnerable of our society) will get any compensation if it is not a refundable rebate. The $900 stimulus cheques spring to mind, where if you didn’t pay at least some tax (be it 1 cent of thousands of dollars), you didn’t get a stimulus cheque. But hey, lets not have facts spoil your insistent narrative that a carbon tax will hardly even be noticeable, and will “certainly” leave us all better off!

“Properly speaking, this isn’t a tax at all, but a price which companies who emit carbon will have to pay for that priviledge”

“A tax or duty is a compulsory charge imposed on an individual or legal entity by a government or equivalent. In Australia taxes and duties are imposed by Federal, State or local governments.”
http://www.taxreform.com.au/definition.php

Lets see… Its imposed by Federal government. Check. It is (or will be) compulsory. Check. It is imposed on individuals or legal entities. Check. Looks like a tax to me!

Honesty is the best policy says:

11:13am | 03/03/11

Peresphone -

can you tell me when my wages will go up? Angry Australians are tired of being told one thing and then another. They are tired of people like you, using selected sources and verse to get your point across.
We are not being led by a government on this policy, we are being caught in between Labor and the Greens (Ex 50’s commo party)

Andrew says:

11:20am | 03/03/11

Seriously Pers, you are unhinged, “it is a tax, it isn’t a tax”, I think you haven’t received your instructions from your Sussex street controllers this morning.

As for the mining tax, stop peddling lines you have no idea about. Labor put sovereign risk on the table and got smacked for it. Get over it.

You still haven’t addressed the Money go round carbon dioxide tax proposition where apparently no-one else is worse off.

Your credibility is shot pers. You would argue black was white for your union overlords. There is no reasoning with you. Funny thing is, as soon as they dump Gillard you’ll shift failure blame to her and through your support behind the next Labor loser all because of your sad little hatred for anything Liberal.

I really am silly, because only a fool argues with an idiot.

Andrew says:

11:39am | 03/03/11

Perse says: “If businesses wish to reduce the amount they pay for carbon they will do so by using alternate energy sources”

Really?

C’mon Perse, this is B.S.

If reasonably priced alternate energy sources were available now business would use them. The whole idea about putting a price on carbon dioxide (a tax) is to bring the excessive cost of alternate energy in line with carbon dioxide emitting fuels. Thus costs rise whichever way. It’s not as if there is this cheap alternate source of energy that business is reticent to use. Your argument that costs can be lowered is bogus.

If you are saying that the carbon dioxide tax will funnel money into alternate energy thereby making it cheaper. Certainly that is an argument but there is no proof and the structural economic changes will be catastrophic in the short term causing great pain all for no real environmental global benefit. Have a look at how quickly Spain and Germany are running away from their schemes and investment in alternate energy.

This is terrible policy backed by spurious assumptions and every increasing doubt over the underlying science and indeed whether a tax can effect climate change.

Apart from that Gillard has as much credibility as you do after her massive lie.

persephone says:

12:14pm | 03/03/11

Jack

I’ve said prices will rise. I’ve also said people will be compensated for more than the cost increases.

Matt

well, there you go. So companies don’t have to pass on the extra price they will have to pay for carbon, because they can just take it out of shareholders’ dividends.

Problem solved, carbon price put in place without a need to for costs to rise.

Honesty

ask your boss. He/she might know.

Andrew

yes, there is always difficulty explaining to people who only think in black and white anything more complex than a three word slogan.

And I don’t have a single union overlord.

Matt says:

12:30pm | 03/03/11

“Matt

well, there you go. So companies don’t have to pass on the extra price they will have to pay for carbon, because they can just take it out of shareholders’ dividends.”

Way to make zero sense there.

Dash says:

01:01pm | 03/03/11

Perse you are a fraud.  You do not understand what is happening or the economic consequences of the tax.

Unless there is a viable alternative (which there isn’t) corporates will pass on the expense to the consumer! And the ALP are talking about a compensation scheme which is basically a move to redistribute wealth. It’s socialism gone mad and you know it!

If you are hard working and successful, the ALP will not compensate you! If you are lazy, and on wealfare, the ALP will compensate you and you might even be better off. That is the truth of this. It’s punishing the nations wealth creators and rewarding the wealth destroyers.

How is that punishing the polluters? If I use exactly the same electricity as someone on unemployment benefits, I get punished and they get rewarded! Why?

This is the most socialist policy in our history. It is an exercise in redistributing income! It goes against the free, open, democratic fabric of our society. And to make matters worse, it is dressed up as an environmental policy and it’s being imposed upon the nation without a mandate.

Don’t forget Juliar was a member of the Socialist Forum right up until 2002. This is straight out of the little red book!

The ALP deliberately lied about the imposition of this tax. Perse, don’t you think they should hold an election on this issue. If not, why not? If the people want it, they’ll be returned! What are they afraid of? They should do it if they have an ounce of decency given the fact they lied too us!

Ben81 says:

01:14pm | 03/03/11

According to persephone people should “get educated” because this tax hits us indirectly so we shouldn’t care, a tax that’s by design intended us to change the way we live by increasing our cost of living but it won’t be imposed on us, oh but it will, oh but people will be compensated and you’ll get a rise in income so that doesn’t matter, and only shareholders will be hit (?!)...

This is officially getting pathetic.  Nothing she has said is based on reality, every bit of it is nothing more than typing the first scenario that sounds nice that comes into her head.  On this topic at least you really need to give it up persephone.

Ben81 says:

01:44pm | 03/03/11

And here’s the best part:
“I’ve said prices will rise. I’ve also said people will be compensated for more than the cost increases.”
“You won’t pay a carbon tax, or a carbon price. Businesses may (if they don’t reduce their emissions). You will get a rise in income, most likely through a direct tax cut.”

Brilliant, we’ll beat climate change into submission by creating and fighting more inflation! 
No workers or unions will demand that these same companies now burdened with the carbon tax increase real wages to help cope with the increased cost of living that won’t be passed on to us! 
Income tax (for some) will be cut to help people cope with the costs passed on from the carbon tax, we’ll fight climate change by redistributing some wealth!

And all for what?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/impacts_climate_mitigation_australia.pdf
Nothing.  nothing at all.

If Australia completely ceased *all* carbon emissions right now, it’s predicted that in about 100 years global average temperatures will change by 0.0123 of a degree.  Remember, that’s all emissions, not just this cut off the top.

If you can still justify this extreme measure to not even start to scratch the surface of a 0.0123 degree change in 100 years you are officially more interested in political spin than substance.

Joan says:

02:01pm | 03/03/11

Saying a Carbon Tax is really a Carbon price is sort of like saying ATO tax on wages is really ATO price for working….. zany totally zany.

Shelly says:

02:19pm | 03/03/11

Great - so companies can take it out of shareholder dividends - don’t have superannuation then Persephone? I do - me and millions of other Australians have superannuation where some or all is invested in shares. Lower the dividend and you cut to crap my and other workers’ retirement fund. Thanks for that.

scepticaland Ithinkbecomingcynical says:

02:38pm | 03/03/11

Persephone - you don’t need to worry about a tax hike cos as a left wing spokesperson for the delusional you are probably living in housing commission housing and being funded from cradle to grave by the disability pension. What a wonderful world it must be for such feted persons who never have to face the harsh and economoc realities of life that most aussies confront everyday.
Just one point you should reflect upon - the majority of normal aussies out there earning a crust are the ones funding your govt funded lifestyle. If Juliars tax comes into play and aussies are slugged even more then perhaps there will not be enough for you and your ilk. Maybe just maybe, and I realise that this is sacrilege, even you and your ilk will have to face some harsh and economic realities.

Jim says:

02:42pm | 03/03/11

I think persephone is stuck on the spin cycle….maybe she should change her name to westinghouse.

You really should give up perse - you may have been able to fool a few people a while ago that you knew your stuff, all your spinning now is just exposing you as a first class idiot employed by the Labor Spin Machine.

Mikeymike says:

02:51pm | 03/03/11

@ Persephone

Off topic, and purely out of curiosity, have you ever seen a Labor policy that you didn’t like?  To the point you publicly argued against it?

I only ask because speaks to your credibility if you are here as a sock puppet.

acotrel says:

02:52pm | 03/03/11

@Joan, the debate has nothing to do with calling a ‘carbon tax’ a ‘price on carbon’.  It’s about Tony Abbott CHOOSING to call ‘a price on carbon ’ a ‘carbon tax’.  Whether it’s a tax is a very vexed question, and it’s not so transparent.  If it’s an excise tax, it would be administered by the Dept of Customs and Excise.  If it’s company tax, by the ATO.  It’s neither of those!  What sort of tax do you claim it to be? It’s not even a royalty.  It’s more of a penalty on polluters!

Jim says:

03:14pm | 03/03/11

“Angry Australians ought to get educated then.” - Oooooh you REALLY don’t want that persephone.

You see, if they get educated on these topical issues they’ll learn that the AGW theory is the biggest con ever seen, with no reputable scientific basis. they’ll also learn that the carbon tax is just a cash grab to enable Labor to continue their poor spending records.
They’ll also learn how to track what the government is really spending this tax money on….no, you wouldn’t want that. Keep them dumbed down and amuses with shiny things and you’ll be fine.

Jim says:

03:21pm | 03/03/11

You’re kidding aren’t you acotrel?? Cracking funnies?

Exactly how many voters do you think will be retained or wooed to the left next election if all your side can come up with is “technically, it’s not a tax”

It could be called anything, it’s still going to hurt everyones pocket several times over.

Grumpy says:

03:40pm | 03/03/11

@ Jennie….Dont buy products that produce alot of carbon to make…i think its the most concise and educated response you could make in regards to prices and how carbon trading will increase prices in retailt.. Also it shows exactly how it would work, The more something pollutes the more expensive their product will be. the consumer then buys at their discretion a cheaper product, theoretically that produced less carbon to make, and hopefully forcing big polluters to alter their operations. Very clever in my opinion, Should have been forcing polluters to do this along time ago, we might still have rainforest’s and clean oceans..

Labor Ruined this Country says:

04:06pm | 03/03/11

@persephone

wow, you are naiive in the extreme. Will these big polluting companies not pass on to working families the added cost of a carbon tax? And before you start talking about compensation, if we need to be compensated then why do it and were is the incentive?

PaulB says:

04:10pm | 03/03/11

No you probably don’t have a Union Overlord Perse, but I suspect that’s because you work for one of those PR companies that employs people to load up comment boards like this with the latest spin the Party (or parties) desire to put out there.  The Americans call it “Astroturfing” (phony Grassroots commentary).  The carbon tax will not appear as a tax, it will appear as higher fees and charges levied by the company paying for the credits, in other words a tax twice removed.  We know Labor has pissed away the money (again) and we know that global tax bases are falling apart so you’ve all got to replace them with something new.  Its just all the lying that gets so wearing after a few years, and the phony leaders telling phony stories, be it Turnbull or Gillard.

Adam Diver says:

07:21am | 03/03/11

All you need to know

“During the past 10 years, global emissions of CO2 from human activity have increased at an average rate of 2.8%/yr (EIA, 2011a), meaning that the annual year-over-year increase of anthropogenic global CO2 emissions is twice as large as Australia’s total emissions.”

and

“China adds alone adds a bit more than one Australia’s-worth of new emissions to its annual emissions total each and every year”

This debate, this policy is completely pointless.

Duff says:

12:10pm | 03/03/11

But, please correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we lost sight of the fact (I think) that the “tax” component is only a temporary measure until a full blown ETS is in place?  I mean, isn’t that what is proposed?  Or have I missed something.

Adam Diver says:

01:48pm | 03/03/11

@ Duff, you are correct, but what is the point of introducing a tax that won’t work, and even if you believe it does work, if you want an ETS just introduce one.

I think I need it clarified why we need an interim measurement, why exactly are we not doing an ets straight away?

acotrel says:

07:13am | 03/03/11

The Shadow MInister for Innovation added some helpful comments to the debate?  Sophie likened Julia to Gaddafi - very innovative - WHAT A DISGRACE?????

Vaunted says:

09:51am | 03/03/11

@ Tedd, actually there’s plenty of rational discussion if you care to look for it. Unless of course, you’re one of those group thinking, peer reviewed rationalists who hold that anyone else, having thought things through logically and rationally, firstly refuses to completely swallow the Gore/Greens/IPCC line, and secondly deserves to be subjected to name calling and slanderous abuse. But all that aside, the problem for me and probably millions like me is that there’s nothing at all rational about imposing a TAX that’s going to hurt each and every one of us, for no discernible gain whatsoever, and we don’t need Tony Abbott or shock jocks to tell us that. If you want to get seriously rational, do the simple arithmetic for yourself. After that, being a thinking, rational person, you’ll no doubt be trying to grope around like the rest of us for rational reasons why (say) Bob and Christine et al think this proposed tax is so vitally important, so to help enlighten you allow me to again quote IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking before Cancun last year:

“...But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010).

So that’s Ottmar Edenhofer’s take on the IPCC rational objective, from the horse’s mouth, and it follows therefore by extension; Rudd’s, Gillard’s, Brown’s and Combet’s. So, rationally speaking, and seeing it’s going to hurt each of us personally, hurt Australian industry and make our nation seriously less competitive, we at least deserve a proper, rational explanation for all that, don’t you think? Rationally speaking?

Fred says:

10:00am | 03/03/11

I don’t know about disgraceful given the reference was clearly to the delusional stance that the majority of Australians support her. Only a small bitter person would take the analogy further. But what else would we expect from the slag and bag Labor way, especially given Juliar can slam Abbott for not having a plan on the environment and then in the next breath claim a 30 Billion hole in it (using union special accountants no doubt). Yet again she proves her total lack of morals or credibility for the truth.

Ironside says:

07:32am | 03/03/11

as opposed to the Prime Ministers actions in question time when asked to admit that the had lied during the election campain, didnt even try to justify what she had said but spent 10 minutes attacking the leader of the opposition and in no way attempted to answer the question.

acotrel says:

08:30am | 03/03/11

@ Ironside.  The person accusing Gillard of telling a lie, is a self-confessed liar himself.  He CHOSE to put the construction that a ‘price on carbon’ is ‘a great big humungus new tax’!  And then he called Gillard a liar because of his own construction! All of his claims about the expense to the average Aussie worker, are based on sheer conjecture!

Ironside says:

10:55am | 03/03/11

@ actorel, did you even watch question time yesterday?
Tony Abbot did not make any sort of construction of the Prime Ministers comments he simply quoted what she said on August 10 2010 that “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead” Yes at the time he ran a campaign that a carbon tax would be a great big new tax on everything which even tho it is a scare campaign is actually true (note this is what makes it so scary) He asked the Prime Minister yesterday how she could claim that her carbon price was not a carbon tax and that if it was a carbon tax she should admit she had lied to the electorate and take that tax to the next election in order to get a mandate for it. The Prime Minister spent 10 minutes attacking abbot before being called out on a point of order by the speaker and sitting down without actually answering the question.

You can be as one eyed a labour supporter as you like (and no you cant claim I am a liberal supporter because I have frequently condemned the LNP and praised the ALP on a number of different issues) but you cant defend her conduct in question time or her lie about a carbon tax to the Australian people by trying to say that Tony Abbot may have lied about stuff in the past. So what? He is not the Prime Minister, He is not running the country. I expect better behaviour from the Prime Minister of Australia, Hawke was great guy and an economic reformer. Keating as much as I disliked him, was an excellent statesman, and Howard was a conviction politician who’s behaviour could be reasonably accurately predicted because he was consistent in his expressed opinions. Gillard is non of these things, she is a closet communist beholden to the greens agenda and more concerned with gay marriage than the state of the Australian economy.

Adam Diver says:

11:49am | 03/03/11

@ Acetrol way to go off topic as per usual.

Question time is a joke and only a biased observer would attack only one side of the chamber.

But I don’t really blame the politicians. Making the assumption they want what they think is best for the country (a large assumption I know) the only way to do so is to be in power.

Now to be in power you need to get people to vote for you, the only real way to influence the votes is via the media. So now we are a situation where the politicians are at the whims of the media.

What does the media report and what does the average voter hear? Sound bites, without context. Thats why policies are summarised into stupid slogans because I doubt the 6 pm newsperson is going to summarize the various aspects the carbon debate, including the science behind it, the methods of tacling it, and the response from other countries. There is only half an hour of news that can be presented and we had the oscars this week remember.

Harry says:

12:09pm | 03/03/11

Yeah Acotrel, “based on sheer conjecture” which comes from the facts laid out for the ETS Juliar killed for political positioning, opening Rudd’s back up wide for her knife. Yet again you push Lie-bor lies, sorry spin.

BobM says:

07:40am | 03/03/11

Gillard wouldn’t have near as many votes if she had told the truth - “there will be a carbon tax under a government I lead”, now would she?
Just goes to show the calibre of the woman and her party, that they quite deliberately deceive the electorate - and now they’re wondering why there is an outcry from the voting public. As well as bribing her way into government by way of the ‘independents’, now she expects us to swallow her lies. The MSM certainly have.

Sam says:

08:18am | 03/03/11

Peter says:06:27am | 03/03/11

The carbon tax may not have been so hard to sell and there would not have been such an uproar if Gillard hadn’t made the HUGE mistake of telling us there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead just days before the election. She has exposed herself to ridicule even from her own supporters for it. I still can’t fathom why she even said it.

Peter, it was appalling that Gillard told such a blatant lie before last year’s election,  it was as if she was channelling the spirit of Howard and all his lies (non-core promises) that we Lib supporters accepted without blinking an eyelid in all of his election campaigns.

acotrel says:

08:41am | 03/03/11

@Bob M Are you really claing that people who voted Labor at the last election were not aware of the ALP’s stance on climate change?:  It doesn’t matter what spin you put on it, at the last election our democratic systrem worked as it should. - ABBOTT LOST!!  He couldn’t cut it and negotiate sucessfully with the independents!  His personal failings led to his own defeat.  And let’s face it, would we really want such an idiot leading Australia?

Ironside says:

12:39pm | 03/03/11

@ actorel, the ALP’s stance on climate change is very different to a carbon tax. In fact they claimed that a market based ETS would be the best way to tackle climate change.
Since your a left wing one eyed labour supporter i don’t expect you to understand this but i will spell it out in small words using short sentences.
If you tax a business for the carbon they produce, they will pass on the cost of that tax to the consumer. If they do not they go out of business. There is no incentive whatsoever for them to change their behaviour especially since our highest carbon producing sectors such as the oil and gas industry the mining industry and the energy sector all produce inelastic products, that being no matte how much they charge people will pay because they need the product in order to survive.
The other option is that the local business moves its production off shore, and imports the product to Australia, since the carbon tax does not count on imports, again there is no reduction in carbon production just a loss of Australian jobs and an associated increase in costs.
If you want to change behaviour you have to provide incentives not punitive punishments.

persephone says:

07:06am | 03/03/11

Key election promise? A statement made, at the most, twice on the eve of the election?

Not mentioned in the debate. Not mentioned in any policy launch. Not mentioned, even, in a media release.

That isn’t a key promise, it’s a passing comment.

Warren says:

07:35am | 03/03/11

Its not the easy option. Doing nothing is the easy option and an irresponsible one.

The argument that Australia only emits 1% of greenhouse gases and therefore taking steps to reduce this is a waste of time is idiotic. Most nations emit similar quantities; the point is all countries needs to make a contribution. Given Australia is one of the worst polluters per head of population we have a responsibility to be seen to do the right thing. If we don’t, other nations have an excuse not to do the same.

puzzled cat says:

08:08am | 03/03/11

What a beat up.  Why not a story about how she lied, she lies and she can’t stop lying.  What about a story about how the ALP run around pretending that the context of criticism is entirely different to what it was.  How about the lies there.  Swanny’s appalled, Julias disgusted.  Mal’s a dud, much like the ALP

simon says:

08:52am | 03/03/11

Doing nothing on carbon dioxide is actually the right option, read this article from Professor Bob Carter.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

Warren says:

09:15am | 03/03/11

I read the article Simon. Professor Bob Carter is running the same line as Andrew Bolt:

“...gentle cooling since about 2001…”

In fact 2010 matched 2005 as the hottest year in 131 years of record keeping. A fifteen year old school boy would know how to interpret a graph depicting the average global temperature. How Professor Bob Carter can conclude the the earth is cooling is truly wonderous. I look forward to his next article demonstrating there is no link between cancer and smoking.

LeftRightOut says:

11:16am | 03/03/11

Perse says: 1 Key election promise? A statement made, at the most, twice on the eve of the election?

2 Not mentioned in the debate. Not mentioned in any policy launch. Not mentioned, even, in a media release.

That isn’t a key promise, it’s a passing comment.

1 It was unequivocal, not open to interpretation, a clear promise, or at least, statement of fact - turned out to be a lie.

2 Climate change took up a whole 12 word sentince in her campaign launch. She avoided the topic like the plague. When pressed for her position, she lied.
You’re as delusional as she is if you think you can write garbage like this.

James says:

12:54pm | 03/03/11

Persephone, seriously, for the sake of your own self respect, you really should go back to HQ and have them give you some blog seeding instructions that you can follow without looking so utterly ridiculous.

It was repeated 4 times, not 2. She looked directly down the camera and made a solemn commitment to the Australian voters. She knew at the time that the Parliament may well be a hung one. Swan mocked Opposition “hysteria” in his own denials of intention to impose a carbon tax.

MarK says:

05:46pm | 03/03/11

persephone says:

  07:06am | 03/03/11

  Key election promise? A statement made, at the most, twice on the eve of the election?

  Not mentioned in the debate. Not mentioned in any policy launch. Not mentioned, even, in a media release.

  That isn’t a key promise, it’s a passing comment.
“

Absolutely agree to a certain extent.

Gillard had a line or two about climatye change in the launch.

Went the rest of the campaign not talking about it.

Ruled out action under her government.

Exactly pers.

She treated the Australian public like mushrooms and fed us lies and bullshit.

She played clever and cunning politics. She misled. She hid. She acted with political cowardice.

I am ashemed this woman leads a political party in my country. I am ashamed she represents me abroad.

fake Julia indeed.

James says:

07:10pm | 08/03/11

James stop stealing my handle

BobM says:

06:49am | 03/03/11

You lot keep dragging out your wish for Malcolm Turnbull to become the Opposition leader. It’s not going to happen - Liberal voters know that he is Labor in Coalition clothing and he lost the leadership BECAUSE he supported the ETS…..but keep the dream alive, tossers.

Seano says:

08:08am | 03/03/11

BobM, the only dream that needs to be kept alive is the one that Abbott can lead the coalition to victory. Simply put his personal unpopularity is such a millstone around the neck of the LNP that they will not win next time with him in charge.

You may like to ignore the obvious but it’s already been proven once, with Labor self destructing Abbott could not win what should have been a walk. He hasn’t become any more popular since then. Labor will win the next one by a narrow margin if Abbott remains, Hockey or Turnbull might be the catalyst to swing it the other way.

Faz says:

09:47am | 03/03/11

Seano is right Bob. I have no ‘wish’ for Turnbull to oust Abbott. I actually think on this particular issue he has the kind of credibility to take it up to Labor.

When the shouting dies down from Abbott and co, we’ll be left with a leader who only believes in climate change when he reads from the script and who’s alternative policy is worse than Labors.

If this becomes the major issue for the next election, Abbott will need to do much more than cry wolf.

acotrel says:

10:54am | 03/03/11

@BobM I do so hope you are correct and Turnbull never becomes leader of the coalition.  He might actually be a threat to the government, instead of just a passing amusement.

Ben81 says:

01:55pm | 03/03/11

“At some time they have to come up with a positive alternative in a area that more than half of them (including Abbott) are not actually convinced about. “
http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx
Hit “Direct Action Plan on the Environment and Climate Change”, and you’re done.  Thank me later.

And oh look, someone brought up Turnbull and the Lib leadership.
Kitchen must be getting hot again.

persephone says:

02:58pm | 03/03/11

Ben81

oh, look, the policy which is going to cost individual Australians over $30 billion and increase carbon emissions by 17%..

The one that relies on putting every single forestry worker in Australia out of work.

Way to go.

Ben81 says:

04:27pm | 03/03/11

Come on persephone you were at least putting some effort into your spin earlier.

persephone says:

05:07pm | 03/03/11

Ben

that one didn’t require effort.

Notice you don’t actually even try to prove me wrong!

persephone says:

05:07pm | 03/03/11

Ben

that one didn’t require effort.

Notice you don’t actually even try to prove me wrong!

Ben81 says:

06:03pm | 03/03/11

Prove what wrong persephone, your rubbish figures you’ve pulled out of the air or read somewhere and taken as gospel?  I’d have said more but I assumed you’d just run away like you did earlier.

Try $3.2 billion over 4 years, and a 5% reduction by 2020.
Your forestry comment is just weird, I think you’re confusing the Coalition with the Greens somehow.

persephone says:

07:09am | 03/03/11

Because if we don’t spend the extra $20 billion the Coalition will be breaking its promise to achieve a 5% reduction.

But that’s OK, because we don’t expect the Coalition to keep promises.

We only expect that of Labor governments, because we recognise that they’re more moral than the Libs and thus we hold them to a higher standard.

Slim says:

07:33am | 03/03/11

if the libs are right, $700 out of $50,000 is hardly putting people’s livelihoods at stake.

persephone says:

08:11am | 03/03/11

Slim

which is a good argument for the government’s plan, which is cheaper again and more effective.

Richard says:

10:24am | 03/03/11

Whatever persephone, every politician has to keep their promises, its common courtesy. Regarding the $20 Billion that must be spent to reach our 2020 5% reduction target, by either party no matter who is in power, the question is, do we want to send all that money off shore into the coffers of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan (a la Labor’s fake “market mechanism”), or do we want that money staying in the country and going to our Aussie companies who have done the right thing and reduced their own emissions endogenously (like in the coalition’s plan)?

LeftRightOut says:

11:23am | 03/03/11

Perhaps another question should be; how on earth are there so many (well, a handful at least) Labor fanboys on this site who can reply to each and every post, saying virtually the same thing over and over. Is this the online team we heard Brumby employed, or something similar?

Funny thing is, people will actually think the theory credible, such is the low opinion held of the ALP these days.

persephone says:

12:33pm | 03/03/11

Richard

To get their desired reduction in emissions, the Liberals would have to buy $20 billion worth of credits FROM OVERSEAS.

Probably from traders such as Goldman Sachs.

The carbon tax will be money raised in Australia (often from multi nationals) and then spent in Australia (either through compensating Australian taxpayers or by investment in green energy).

It will encourage these multinationals to invest in Australia.

So if youi’re looking at keeping money in the country, and you don’t want it lining the pockets of currency traders, a carbon tax wins hands down.

LeftRightOut

funny how no one asks these questions about TimB or MarK.

TimB says:

02:21pm | 03/03/11

That’s because we’re awesome Perse.

I know you’re jealous.

Mouse says:

02:34pm | 03/03/11

My question is, if Labor say that the Liberals have “no policy” how can they find a $20B black hole in their costings”
And yes,  gillard & co have stated on numerous occasions that Liberals have “no policy, no direction, etc”. I don’t have links to put up for you to go to, but it has been said and I am sure I am not the only one that has heard it.

persephone says:

02:49pm | 03/03/11

Mouse

you probably read it on a website somewhere - and it probably originally referred to Mexico.

Mouse says:

03:48pm | 03/03/11

Oooo perse, nasty!!! Thanks for the reply though. You seem to have some pre-occupation with Mexico lately, are you going there?

Louisa says:

06:31pm | 03/03/11

I don’t know why any of you give persephone oxygen to push her Labor spin.

CABAL says:

11:37am | 03/03/11

Or we could just convert the whole damn country to Nuclear Power. We have plenty of Uranium, it relatively clean and best of all it will actually give us the amount of power we need to run the country (unlike solar, wind, hydro -electric and geo-thermal power)

Joan says:

12:54pm | 03/03/11

What ? You think backstabber liar Gillard with the talent off a con artist .... is a role model?..... No thank you !

BR says:

11:36am | 03/03/11

I think you’ll find Dr Brown is happy in his position as puppeteer at the moment. He’s certainly doing a good job making Labor dance the green socialist tune….

Dash says:

03:19pm | 03/03/11

Labor hasn’t come up with a credible argument for the carbon tax and it’s their policy! And Gillard and Swan deliberately lied to the Australian people over their intentions! So who’s the bigger embarressment.

Abbott was open and transparent about paid parental leave during the election campaign. He fought an election withit as part of his policy! Gillard and the ALP cannot say the same thing about this tax! You are deluded if you want to compare that with Gillard and Swan denying they would introduce a carbon tax DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN!

You are clearly biased and prepared to accept unethical behaviour at any cost from the Labor party!

JT says:

08:46am | 03/03/11

If by most Australians you mean a tiny minority of Australians than yes you are correct.

For the other 80+% of us, we understand that our current Prime Minister lied to gain office and now is having her strings pulled by an extremist political party she went to bed with and is going to introduce a tax that will achieve nothing, cost a lot, and hurt Most Australians.

Todd says:

12:49pm | 03/03/11

Most Australia’s,
You sir must live under a rock. In every forum, radio show, poll i’ve seen the vast majority, in most cases 80+% as stated by JT, are dead against it.
Most people In my neighbourhood, regardless of political persuasion are keen for the environment. We recycle, we turn our electricity off at the switch before bed, we take shorter showers and we walk to the shops.
So we already do the things the Laborites are saying we can do to feel the effects of said tax less. It is a joke, i’m sure there are smarter & better ways to help the environment than tax people.
BTW while I dont condone the death threats & unsocial aspects of peoples complaints, they are well founded in the community.

Most Australians says:

01:43pm | 03/03/11

Todd
80% are against what?
Do you mean that
Most Australians are don’t recognise that humans have been and continue to pollute our environment.
Most Australians are don’t understand that coal and oil are a finite resources which will soon run out.
Most Australians are don’t understand that now is the time to drive change in how we use energy and where our energy comes from.
Most Australians don’t understand that the coalition has only NO for an answer regardless of the question. That they are NO longer capable of having a sensible debate about anything and that the way forward for themselves is to be paved with hate.
What you seem to be saying is that most Australians don’t understand these facts?

krusha says:

06:34pm | 03/03/11

being a labor lover. its seems you might be a bit slow Most Australian, and it doesnt matter how many times you say the same thing, it does not make it right. The majority of australians dont want this cash grab tax, that really wont do squat for anything. The carbon lie is a myth. What they should be worried about is pollution. The amount of poisons and pollutants which are running off into the water systems is more important. And your carbon tax is only a way to steal more money from struggling australians. This tax will add more to everything as well as lift gst take for governments. this tax is devious and these reds shopuld be held accountable for the future damage they will cause with it. If they are so confident that this is the answer, why dont they just start without us, and bet their superannuation on it. If they are right they get to keep it, if not, lets say the forfiet all their outrageous perks and bonuses.

Jo says:

08:36am | 03/03/11

PJ,  they do look like they could share the same hairdresser and hair color product.

simon says:

09:23am | 03/03/11

Yeh and at least you know where you stand with Gaddafi. The analogy is very true though, Gillard is clearly deluded if she thinks Australia wants a carbon tax. Everything will go up in price and the GST will go up as well. It will be a double tax take!!!

Flexo says:

09:40am | 03/03/11

Gaddafi may actually be less corrupt. I agree he is way better looking

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder says:

10:21am | 03/03/11

If you think Gaddafi is good looking,
I’d hate to see your wives

Joel B1 says:

08:23am | 03/03/11

Agreed, let’s see if “Angry MPs conned into supporting Green bill confront Gillard” gets any critical analysis.

Even the lefties at the ABC are running it…

Ricky says:

09:26am | 03/03/11

Nuclear is the way to go, but the ALP can not and will not even talk about it as their Coal Mining Union buddies would have an absolute kaniption over it. Ask you Local ALP Member why the ALP will not even consider Nuclear. Maybe Peter Garrett and his wildly flailing amrs can generate enough wind to give us our base load needs. In the meantime Mr Combet and his ministry of hot air are enjoying their publicly funded ocena side lifestyle. Mr Combet needs to stand up and explain why he bought seas side property while spruiking the normal IPCC lies about rising sea levels.

persephone says:

10:17am | 03/03/11

Ricky

the Labor party does talk about it; it was debated at the last National conference, for example.

Ask your local Liberal MP whether they support nuclear - and even more pertinently, whether they would support it in their electorate.

I know mine doesn’t. Says it creates the risk of a toxic spill which will devastate the whole area for generations.

Better still, ask your local power provider - the one who is going to have to find the investment money for green energy - whether they’re considering nuclear as one of their future options. They’ll say they’re not.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what stance a particular government takes on nuclear. If someone’s willing to invest in it, they’ll be pushing for it. If there’s no one willing to invest, then governments aren’t going to go there.

No one wants to invest in nuclear in Australia. Those of you who think it’s a good idea should ask yourselves why this is so.

TimB says:

11:08am | 03/03/11

“In the end, it doesn’t matter what stance a particular government takes on nuclear. If someone’s willing to invest in it, they’ll be pushing for it. If there’s no one willing to invest, then governments aren’t going to go there.”

Like renewable energy?

Oh wait. The government is bringing in a tax to *force* people to invest in that. Way to go.

persephone says:

02:54pm | 03/03/11

TimB

if industry wanted, I’m sure they could put enough pressure on government for nuclear to be included under that umbrella.

Industry isn’t interested.

In the absence of investor interest, who are you suggesting should fund nuclear? Who has a lazy $100 billion they’re willing to invest?

Nuclear isn’t on the table - not because Labor isn’t interested, not because the Liberals aren’t (and there’s no suggestion that they are) but because nucelar is not a good investment in the Australian context.

If it was, there would be investors agitating for it.

TimB says:

03:22pm | 03/03/11

So why don’t you apply the same logic to renewables?

Why do we need to be “encouraged” to invest, via taxes and subsidies?

Why aren’t people interested in investing in these areas of their own free will?

Could it be that the technology just isn’t viable for our needs?

And the only reason there’s no interest in nuclear tech here is because too many people still believe in the dated nuclear boogeyman created by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  The same boogeyman people like the Greens raise whenever the issue comes up for debate

persephone says:

04:16pm | 03/03/11

TimB

because companies ARE interesed in investing in them, but not as quickly as we need them to and we can cut emissions effectively and quickly by speeding the process up.

Whereas noone wants to invest in nuclear, no matter what the time scales.

As I said, we’re talking $4 billion a pop, for electricity that won’t come on line until 2020. That’s a lot of money to tie up in something that won’t even begin to give you a return for over a decade.

Whereas investing in geothermal, windpower, or solar doesn’t cost the investor as much and sees a return on their money within a few years.

Knemon says:

10:19am | 03/03/11

Hear hear Harriet @ 08:37. I’m guessing their bile is main stream media content due to nothing but ‘slack journalism’ - The media have been on a downward spiral in this country for many years now, so get used to it.

BobM says:

10:27am | 03/03/11

So you would prefer to just hear Julia’s lies and take that as the truth? Grow a brain or watch the ABC (or read Malcolm’s column) if you just prefer to hear/watch a one-sided argument.

ibast says:

10:40am | 03/03/11

BobM, it is indicative of the sad state of Australian Journalism that you believe that re-neck radio and the main stream media offer a balanced view and the ABC doesn’t.

As to Malcolm Farr, sure he’s left of centre but he’s not as far from the centre as the likes as Akerman, Bolt (of late) and Oakes.  It’s actually refreshing to have a left point of view after 20 years of very right journalism in this country.

Andrew says:

12:08pm | 03/03/11

@ibast: you think Oakes is right wing?? You think the media in this country has been right wing for the last 20 years? What have you been smoking?? How many questions marks can I get away with after a question????

ibast says:

12:23pm | 03/03/11

Andrew,

Is that you Bolty?

??????

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:54am | 03/03/11

I’ve said all along that a carbon tax is useless without carbon tariffs and population stabalization…

persephone says:

10:21am | 03/03/11

Wishing won’t get you one.

There’s no likelihood that there’ll be one for the next two and a half years.

That means a carbon price will be in place, the NBN will be rolled out to the majority of Australians, and the flood levy will be a distant memory (what happened to that, btw? Wasn’t that going to bring down this government? Why hasn’t it been mentioned here recently?)

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:26am | 03/03/11

Still waiting for Nick to knock it on the head. I hope. 

Where does the bashing of the taxpayer finish? Flood levies, carbon taxes ... all paid for by those of us who are already supporting the country. (ie not most ALP voters, I mean those of us who work)

The Badger says:

12:53pm | 03/03/11

Poor Tony
Breaking news.
Another victory for common sense.
“The Federal Government’s flood levy legislation now looks likely to pass into law after independent Senator Nick Xenophon struck a deal to secure his backing for the bill in the Upper House.”

Dash says:

01:41pm | 03/03/11

Badger, how much will you pay for the flood levy? If you’re in an ALP demographic, probably not much.

Once again, the people who are already paying the most in tax and who are contributing the most financially to this nation, get slugged by the ALP. Punish the wealth creators and reward the wealth destroyers.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Australia!

The Badger says:

02:16pm | 03/03/11

Now bring on the mining tax and the carbon tax.
Can’t wait.

Tractorboy says:

11:19am | 03/03/11

I despise the greens social agenda, but the ultra conservatives on this blog REALLY scare me. I agree with you Kath. The companies that are polluting us out of existence should be held to account and cleaner technology should replace dirty coal (among other prudent measures as well). Some hard right bloggers agree that something needs to be done about pollution but , because of the cost, it’s simply too hard. They are the real liars, because they share Abbot’s flawed ideology, as opposed to science, which is open to scrutiny. If you believe that it’s a all a conspiracy theory, then, according to your logic, companies should be allowed to pollute to their hearts content, because the Earth can absorb all we can throw at it. There will be no problem with quadruple the carbon, benzene, ozone etc. Of course, that’s a lie.

Andrew1 says:

11:22am | 03/03/11

As Julia would say go and have a bex. It’s gone on always, the only difference this time is people like you are desperate to change the focus from Gillard. Nice try. Bloodshed in the streets, oh please.
Maybe it’s the left that are stirring it all up? Did you think of that?

Andrew says:

12:25pm | 03/03/11

WTF are you smoking.

The politics of the Left is the politics of hate. The politics of demagougery. The Left always say they are representing the “masses” and they promote hate against anyone who has done well “the upper class”. Then they get in power and blame everyone else for there failures (it’s Tony Abbott’s fault, he won’t play nicely with us).

No-one hates like the left.

Further, this debate is about
1. Gillard and Swan are massive liars;
2. Australia getting a carbon dioxide tax will not effect climate in any way;
3. Labor can’t be trusted

Dash says:

01:07pm | 03/03/11

What about living in a country where politicians deliberately lie about a policy they have every intention to implement during an election campaign. Happy to live with that kind of deceit Kath? Would you be happy for the ALP to hold an election over this issue???

Lets take this policy to the people with open and honest debate and see what happens!

You’d prefer to live in a poor country would you Kath?

Does the ALP have a responsibility to be open and honest with the Australian people Kath? Or is it OK for them to be returned to government on the back of this massive lie?

BR says:

01:19pm | 03/03/11

Tractorboy; I think you are a little confused in your statement: “...as opposed to science, which is open to scrutiny.”

If you have even attempted to scrutinise the need for a Carbon Tax / ETS / etc, immediately you’re branded a “denier”. It is true, science should be open to debate and discussion, unfortunately in this debate, each side is keen to muddy the waters in an attempt to preserve capital.

Tractorboy says:

02:21pm | 03/03/11

BR I do see your point (and thank you for it). What you say has some truth to it. I would prefer another path to reducing emmisions and that would involve much more investment in cleaner technologies. I’m no raving fan of this tax but I’m also no fan of innaction. Your last sentence is so true. Both sides of the debate are very venomous towards the other. The confusion over this topic on the internet is a major hurdle as well. I let science settle the issue and then expect governments to act…...responsibly. So many people here think they know the answers but let politics get in the way. That’s the biggest problem as I see it. Also BR, that confusing statement of mine implied that in this (carbon) debate, science always has enormous peer scrutiny placed on it before its findings are ratified, whilst Mr Abbott’s position is purely political. After all, he is a politician. He conforms to his political ideals, which in this case, for some reason, fly in the face of scientific measurement of human accelerated climate change. This tax will not do much to change the climate. I know that. I can’t wait for Turnbull to take the reins again. Now that’s a man I could vote for despite the baggage on his far right

Squeeze the Middle says:

11:37am | 03/03/11

And who exactly IS going to pay for the pollution? Some mythical demographic?  Who?

Dash says:

01:33pm | 03/03/11

Paul, the bit you miss is that the ALP are not going to make everyone pay for this on an equal basis. They are going to compensate a select few! If I use the same electricity as someone on the dole, they get compensated and I don’t. That is what this policy is about!

Squeeze, this is about wealth redistribution. If you’re in an ALP demographic you’ll be compensated! Otherwise, the successful hardworking people will get slugged. It’s socialism gone mad. And it has nothing to do with the environment!

Squeeze the Middle says:

01:52pm | 03/03/11

I know Dash, I know. Note my name.

Grumpy says:

03:54pm | 03/03/11

The option is up to the consumer to pay for it or not. Products that produce more carbon will be more expensive than products that have used less to make. So you choose to pay a price for the pollution or not. Hopefully this will result in sales reducing for the heavy polluters and then they will have to alter their operations to remain competitive. I think its a great idea. Or vote for a liberal government and plant trees.

persephone says:

04:27pm | 03/03/11

Dash

the policy is about encouraging everyone to limit their use of fossil fuels.

It’s a bit like smoking taxes or speeding fines - the government would be very happy if no one had to pay them.

Everyone understands that taxing smokers discourages smoking. And if you don’t give up smoking, at least you’re paying a little towards your future medical costs when you do.

Likewise, fining speeding motorists discourages speeding. And, again, if you decide you’re going to speed, the fines you pay help cover the costs people like you inflict on the rest of the community.

Same principle with carbon.

Ideally, the government would like no one to do anything that emitted any.

So it puts a price on it.  That way, products which involve high emissions cost more than products that don’t. You can shop around for low emission alternatives, you can take action to lower your own emissions, or you can pay for the priviledge of continuing life as usual.

If you’ve got a higher income, you’ve more opportunities to lower your emissions, because you can afford to spend money on home insulation, curtains with thermal lining, double glazing, solar panels and hot water systems, fuel efficient cars, etc etc. No reason why, if you’re prepared to invest a little money up front, your electricity bills shouldn’t go down, not up.

If you’re a lower income earner, you don’t have as many of those options available to you.

Andrew says:

12:55am | 04/03/11

So perse we all know overpopulation is a problem when can we expect a tax on sex. We all know that australia isnt really overpopulated compared with other countries but hey that doesnt matter as we have to all do our bit to help save the world. We can hardly expect the most overpopulated countries like China, India, Japan, USA etc to act first, we need to lead the way.

Dash says:

08:09am | 04/03/11

Of course Perse the other way of looking at it, is if you’ve got a higher income you’re already contributing more financially to the government and the nation. Therefore you are contributing more to their ability to help develop clean alternatives. So the people who are actually doing more financially to assist the government get penalised and those that don’t get rewarded. How bloody stupid is that!

Middle Australia will get hit by this and those living in ALP demographics will benefit. It’s socialism gone mad Perse! It’s wrong! And please stop rattling on about the compensation part of this policy when you know that the ALP will not compensate households equally!

the ALP will decide who gets compensated just as they decided who could build school halls! RORT!

Yogi Bear says:

11:34am | 03/03/11

Heavens to mergatroids
OMG
A politician changed their mind.

You poor poor dear, take little boo boo and go have a lie down.

Dash says:

12:48pm | 03/03/11

Nah, they didn’t change their mind, they deliberately mislead the Australian public. There is a massive difference! If they changed their mind, fight an election over it! After all, that’s what happened with the GST. But alas the ALP are a pack of crooks who have presided over a fraud with this one! And they’ll get away with it if people like you make light of what they’ve done. You may be willing to accept this kind of deceitful behaviour, but I (and millions more) expect better!

Sorry but i wont lie down over this one!

Nice Hanna Barbera references though! I quite liked Snagglepuss when I was 4.

Squeeze the Middle says:

01:02pm | 03/03/11

Yogi.  Exactly what Tony conceded on the 7.30 report and the Labor flag wavers roasted him for. They’re as bad as each other. Oh hang on, wasn’t that Tony’s point.  Isn’t that your point?

Yogi Bear says:

01:47pm | 03/03/11

Squeeze the Middle
You are smarter than the average bear.

Richard says:

12:35pm | 03/03/11

Not so Democrat:

a) the government imposing a price on carbon doesn’t equal penalising “polluters”. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, its a naturally occurring gas, you breath it out of your own body every few seconds. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to survive. You are trying to strengthen your point by changing definitions, which is a low and dirty tactic.

b) The coalition’s plan is to reward innovation and emissions reductions by our own Australian companies, keeping our money in our own country. Labor’s plan is to set up a fake carbon “market”, which has proved to be an utter failure everywhere else its been tried.
Thats the real situation.

Ricky says:

12:50pm | 03/03/11

Hey Democrat, if the Govt compensates the “user”, when will the user ever change their ways? No where else in the world exists a tax policy that will give me a profit on my expenses. I will simply run all my appliances, air conditioners, tv’s 24/7 and wait for my rebate funded by the majority of tax payers. Thanks Democrat for funding my excesses, thank you Julia for paying my power bills. Where will the govt get the money from to compensate us??? From General Tax revenue. Say goodbye to basic services that Govts should have as their priority, hello world where populations are reliant on their overseer lords for all our daily requirements.

Andrew says:

01:01am | 04/03/11

Oh my God, what is the world coming to a sensible balance article by Annabel Crabb.

andrew says:

01:04am | 04/03/11

At last a journalist that can actually see comments for what they are, not turn them into something completely different that favours there political leanings.

Dash says:

01:27pm | 03/03/11

You vote for the party not an individual! That’s where so many people go wrong. The ALP got rid of Rudd, but guess what, it’s still the same old ALP that’s over promised and under delivered. It’s still the same old ALP that’s lied to us time and time again! If you vote for a person instead of the party you’re unhinged (whatever that means).

Loz says:

10:59am | 04/03/11

I’d vote for Charlie Sheen over Julia Gillard if he promised not to introduce carbon tax.

Dash says:

01:23pm | 03/03/11

Exactly! The ALP deliberately deceive the electorate and it’s suddenly about the LNP???

Mouse says:

03:31pm | 03/03/11

Maybe Mal focuses on the Libs because he is so horrifed at what comes out of gillard’s mouth that he just doesn’t hear it any more.

Shelly says:

02:28pm | 03/03/11

That’s not quite what Mirabella meant. Gaddafi’s deluded thinking his people love him. Gillard is deluded in thinking the people want this tax.

Luke says:

01:44pm | 03/03/11

Howard was the Leader and PM, there was no doubt in anyones mind about that EVER.

Dash says:

03:01pm | 03/03/11

And Howard fought an election over the GST. Gillard and the ALP denied they were going to introduce this tax and refuse to hold an election over it. Massive difference!

Andrew says:

01:12am | 04/03/11

This is the worse comparison ever, what other policys did the democrats force on the Australian people. The democrats actually got the blame for doing the right thing, the GST was taken to an election, the coalition won and out of sour grapes labor still refused to pass it, the dems supported it because the coalition had won an mandate, even though they did force some chances.

Dr B S Goh says:

03:10pm | 03/03/11

Thanks for giving us the name of Professor Richard Lindzen as a leading climate scientist who asks us not to panic over global warming.

I find some of Lindzen work very interesting. Here I am a lay man as I am a scientist specializing in the management of biological populations and I have no expertise on the climate.

I hope those who are passionate about global warming can open up their minds and listen to what Lindzen has to say.

TimB says:

02:27pm | 03/03/11

Looking for abuse in their comments Kath. Can’t find it. Closest was Andrew with “WTF are you smoking”. Rather mild I think. Wouldn’t characterise it as abuse.

Perhaps your definition of verbal abuse is viewpoints that disagree with yours?

Hope you good coping mechanisms then. You’ll need them.

Dash says:

03:10pm | 03/03/11

I asked you a series of questions. There was no verbal abuse Kath! You suggesting otherwise says more about you than me!

Do you feel like answering my questions at all Kath? Or will you just blindly support Gillard and the ALP’s deception of the electorate?

In my opinion I believe Gillard and the ALP deserve to be held accountable for the way they have tried to railroad this tax through the parliament after denying during the very recent election campaign, that they would. There is considerable anger out there over this!

If the ALP had any ounce of dignity, respect and ethics, they would fight an election on this issue just as was done over the GST!

Andrew says:

06:02pm | 03/03/11

Another leftie crying foul. Please show me where I have been abusive. I have pointed out Mal’s Farr left political bias. I have pointed out Persephone’s total inability to consider anything that Labor does could possibly be wrong and everything Liberal is patently evil. Apart from that I don’t see any abuse.

Oh, I get it, abuse is disagreeing with you. You may be as deluded as the PM

John says:

02:15pm | 03/03/11

Because Doctor, then we can’t stand on our own elevated moral high ground, looking down our sneering noses at the rest of the world and it’s filthy, insignificant inhabitants, whilst revelling in how morally superior we feel in our own warm fuzzy minds… all the while feeling so stimulated by how we’re taking the proles’ hard earned money whilst dictating to them how they improve their disgusting lives.

I assume you’re not too familiar with the left side of politics?

Dr B S Staye says:

07:05pm | 03/03/11

As a scientist I cannot understand why a large percentage of the Australian public does not agree with the findings of the overwhelming majority of scientists researching Global Warming. Sure, the world has survived in the past with much higher and also much lower average temperatures, but that was tens of thousands of years ago when the population of the earth was few million people and there wasn’t millions of tons of CO2 spewing into the world along with all the other industrial pollutants we have contaminated our planet with in the last few hundred years.

The sad thing is that if we listen to people who know nothing about the science and are merely politically motivated, we are going to inflict on future generations the most horrible of legacies. A dying planet unable to feed the masses and in constant struggle with an increasing violent climate.

As one of the two largest generators of CO2 per capita, it is up to us to be at the forefront of addressing climate change and lead the world in developing alternate renewable energy sources.

Andrew says:

01:22am | 04/03/11

Dr Staye you have just omitted the world has survived with much higher average temperatures, so your actually admitting that Global warming is BS.

Squeeze the Middle says:

08:15am | 04/03/11

Dr Staye: “unable to feed the masses “

So what do you think shutting down the Murray Darling food bowl is going to do?

So why haven’t we had a debate on global population yet? Unchecked population growth means starving masses will be guaranteed.

Reality Check Mate.

As for our Per Capita shame.  Australia is a high emitter BECAUSE of our governments, NOT in spite of them.

Dr. B S Staye says:

09:46am | 04/03/11

Squeeze the Middle
Nobody is talking about shutting own the Murray Darling basin. We are just emerging from 10 years of drought, or have you just arrived on these shores? Where do you propose we get the water to keep the Murray Darling productive in these cycles of drought?
I doubt whether a fully developed Murray Darling couldn’t even provide Australia alone with all her agricultural needs.

Where do you propose this debate on global population population be held and who will be attending?
Think Globally, act locally.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:23pm | 04/03/11

Dr Staye.  So you say nobody is talking about shutting down the MDB but then you concede that it probably needs to be substantially shut down because it can’t even provide for Oz.  You ask about water for the dry times.  Hume weir went someway to dealing with that problem.  But we don’t do dams anymore. That’s like taking someone’s shoes and then telling them they can’t play because they haven’t got shoes on.

Population is the big taboo subject because it’s too easy for the disingenuous to cry Nazi eugenics. But how much easier is it for the sinister and disingenuous to thrive when the topic is whispered behind closed doors.  With all the criticism by the West of China, at least China is open and honest about the problem of population.

Anyway, how is selling our water rights to foreigners going to help? Hmmm seems we’ve all forgotten about how absentee landlordism and the corn laws depopulated Ireland.  Wow.  That brutal lesson has been quickly forgotten.

“Think Globally, act locally.” Sure.  So are you saying that we should reduce our export of the food and energy that makes life so comfortable for foreigners to reproduce? Sounds pretty sinister to me.  I prefer open debate.  And not in some PC gab fest summit. Lets debate everywhere and everyday. From the streets.

population X consumption X 1/efficiency = pollution

Reducing consumption and increasing efficiency can only do so much eh Dr.  Anyway, it’s quite the paradox for Labor, the advocate for the under dog, to support a reduction in the quality of life for its supporters?  Labor is hedging its bets on efficiency only.  Or is it?

As for efficiency.  Well as I said before:  that’s Governments’ fault.  They’re still building roads. They chose aluminium HT conductors instead of the more expensive copper.  They’re still applying huge disincentives like the home stamp duty which discourages people from moving closer to work and the more efficient use of our housing stock.  And they are still flogging off land around train stations rather than turning it into free parking for individual modes of transport (pushies, scooters, mopeds, cars etc). Both flavours of government are guilty.

Tell me DR.  Where’s the audit of the % of our electricity consumed by our 3 levels of government?  You want to scientific about this?  Bring it on. 10% of our electricity is lost in transmission. I live in a capital and 1/2 my electricity consumption is from my solar PV.  Hence, I’ve likely cut emissions from my elec by 5% without cutting my consumption by 1 coulomb.  And I’ve done that too, at my own expense. Has council done their bit?  Or are they still maintaining their precious staff in an ivory tower at e.g. 24.6 to 26.2 C?  Government inaction is speaking far louder than their dissolves-on-contact-with-paper words.

Australia is a high emitter BECAUSE of our Governments NOT in spite of them. And government want US to change our ways but they won’t change theirs.  And Gillard wants a blank cheque for it too.  Then there’s her lie that she had to have. (I guess that wasn’t gospel.)  If Gillard wants her blank cheque then she needs to green up government first. And my ears are closed to typical pollie blame games.

TimB says:

02:47pm | 03/03/11

Right. So which countries are you going to buy all your electronic goods etc from then?

All the local manufacturing industry that we have?

John says:

03:31pm | 03/03/11

TimB you goose, we’ll just hunt for our dinner with hand-crafted wooden spears, and light fires in our front yards to cook the wild carcases over.  The fires also warm us so we don’t need evil electric heaters!

It’s all so bloody simple!  Why don’t any of you crazy conservatives get it!!??

TimB says:

05:31pm | 03/03/11

@ John

I always did say the Greens intend to take us back to the Stone Age.

Puts the constant “1950’s” jibes that get aimed at Tony Abbott into perspective.

I’d much rather live in 1950 than the stone age which is where we’re headed under Greens/Labor.

MarK says:

05:41pm | 03/03/11

John

Tsk tsk

Wood is carbon based. The burning of wood will relaese CO2 that well know pollutant.

Australia will tehn heat up and we will all die in a massive blizzard which you do as the weather heats up. Within days. Hours probably.

Peter says:

09:54am | 04/03/11

But wait theres more. Ploughing the paddocks backward is going to soak up all that Carbon being released in Australia.
Only problem with Tony planting trees is Gunns pulping them and emitting tonnes of Carbon from the wood chippers in the process..

Against the Man says:

06:06pm | 03/03/11

Gilltard hasn’t the integrity or courage of conviction to take this to the polls. But being dirty, deceitful rats is a pre-requisite to joining the ALP. Based on next week’s polls and the NSW State election backlash, she may be gone and sadly not collect an undeserved pension.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:32pm | 04/03/11

AtM.  Shame the otherside continues to still make them electable.

Are these people a reflection of us?  Or has our Democracy Lite been neutered?

Christian Real says:

08:21am | 05/03/11

Against the Man
You talk about integrity, but you sympathise with Tony Abbott and his bunch of Liberal ‘nuts’ that are running loose in Our Parliament .
Abbott’s interests, is not in the interests of The Australian Parliament,nor is he interested in the Australia People or this Country which he craves to lead should he ever become Prime Minister.
Tony Abbott and the riff raff that he calls his Opposition has brought shame and disgrace upon Our parliament,and upon the office of Prime Minister by their slurs, insults,unsavory,unacceptable and Un-Australian derogatory name calling and insults they have been hurling at an elected Prime Minister and her government.
It is time that Abbott and the rest of the Liberal riff raff removed their butts from Our Parliament.
It is time to bring back Malcolm Turnbull and then the Liberal party might even be able to regain Respect and integrity once again.
Tony Abbott and some of his Ministers and Senators appear to be suffering from a mental disorder,the way they are orchestrating this campaign of smearng, insulting,unacceptable and Un-Australian diatribe in our Parliament toward the elected Prime Minister and her Government,perhaps it is because Tony Abbott has no policies or ideas to put forward.
Abbott and his co-conspirers have got to go, there is no place in our Parliament for Liberal political nutcases such as these people are.

Peter says:

08:34pm | 03/03/11

“I’m gonna opt out of this debate” , John, thats only the ramrods rattling, me thinks some are upset.

Louisa says:

07:08pm | 03/03/11

Before that Aaron…. well before that.

stephen cronin says:

07:15pm | 03/03/11

I’m Not Jewish.

The Badger says:

10:04pm | 03/03/11

So the people of Australia want a flood levy?
So the people of Australia want the NBN?
So the people of Australia want a Labor government?
And if the CPRS/ETS gets up, you agree that the people of Australia want that as well
Good work colon