The carbon tax debate Australia never had

Wayne Hutchins says:

05:08am | 01/12/09

Here Here, well said! The argument has become confusing for all and in most areas has become nothing more than a slagging match on ridiculous things like grammar. How week are some people’s argument that all they can pick on is grammar! Had one on anther article who biggest concern in life was “YOUR and YOU’RE….we are about too borrow loads of money from China on a “KRUDDS folly” and all this bloke is worried about is my grammar. Says a lot about the frustrations true believers have when their argument is falling apart around their ears. Blind faith is a worry.. Sorry I’m just not as gooda spella as some of em…But I can think for myself…

Sarah says:

08:02am | 01/12/09

John Cobb were you off with the fairies when Howard asked his PMC secretary Peter Shergold to undertake a taskgroup into what would be the most practical, least expensive way of Australia reducing its emissions in line with its international responisbilities. A carbon tax was explored, and ruled out, because of a number of problems, and an ETS was chosen, among other reasons, because it is an across the board, all inclusive scheme (which means least cost). John you never were very bright, even for a nat.

Dave says:

08:06am | 01/12/09

Listening to question time yesterday it was very clear that not even Penny Wong actually knew how all aspects of thw scheme were going to work so no wonder the public at large is clueless.  I truly hope that Abbott gets up today, if for no other reason that at least the Government will actually have to make the case for this convoluted nightmare of a green tax.

Sherlock says:

08:08am | 01/12/09

That’s right. It’s a tax on everything with no tangible benefit. Yet there are people lining up to pay it. This must be the marketing plan of the 21st century. The further you look into Rudd’s plan the sillier it becomes. A lot of the reduction in emissions comes from the establishment of clean coal which is the joke of the century.

They are talking one minute of Australia reducing it’s emissions by over 50% by 2050 yet the next minute the PM is talking about increasing our population to 35 million by the same date. That means every Australian will need to reduce their emissions by 75% as compared to today.

Well people how about you tell us what you’re prepared to do without. Have a look around your home and tell us what you’re prepared to get rid of.

Don’t worry I won’t be holding my breath waiting for answers. The funny thing is I never elected a government in order to lower my lifestyle. Obviously a lot of you did.

steve says:

08:22am | 01/12/09

Again I say, Can anyone confirm that Dinky little Australia placing a tax on power, fuel, gas and jobs will alter the temperature of the planet? Every time I ask this no response. Not even the most rapid eco alarmist believes thisis going to work. If no one believes this is not going to work, Why bother to do it.
This has nothing to do with the planet climate, this is about money.
If a Government says is going to get $114 billion dollars in 10 years when before they got none, sorry mate it is a TAX.
Pedro the only fear mongers I have heard is those telling me if I do not agree with this TAX I somehow hate the world and my children.
Ian if you wat to go planting forests go for you life son.
People like Al Gore and Maq Bank are going to make an absolute fortune out of this. so the markets that you lot abused for the FGC are the ones that are driving this. why do you think the member for Glodman Sacks is so supportive of it?

climategate mate

John says:

08:23am | 01/12/09

All our politicians are just actors on the stage of government. They have a script to frame the debate. This creates the elusion that we have had some influence on decisions and makes us fell good about ourselves. But by the end of the play they do exactly what good for them. It’s a system that manufacturers consent and it works. The only way we ever have say is with a referendum, which our actors are loathed to give us and even then they make it deliberately confusing.

Jules says:

08:55am | 01/12/09

John Cobb it’s you, not Penny Wong, who is misleading the Australian public.

The ETS is a policy mechanism that will allow the Government to control the pace of change from a fossil fuel based economy to an alternative model. If we don’t have an ETS certain industries will be left vulnerable to collapse, while others may not be able to get off the ground inline with our needs.

This way, as global compacts are signed and certainty acheived, we can tinker with the price of permits and use it as a sort of protectionist policy where appropriate, a stimulus where appropriate, and a way of gradually phasing out unviable industries without having them violently collapse. 

Your BS about ‘tax this, tax that, cost to households’ is a diversionary tactic - I’m guessing because you and your party have been sold on Barney’s catch phrases and don’t actually understand the legislation yourselves.

How else does your party propose the help Australia through what is inarguably going to be one of the most fundamental changes to our economy of our lifetime? With a patchwork quilt of industry-specific policies. You guys don’t have a clue.

Wayne Hutchins says:

09:03am | 01/12/09

ETS GONE!!!!!!!!!

Well done to Abbot..

Alex L says:

09:23am | 01/12/09

How noble of you Andrew Goff. Will you also house the homeless, cure the sick and take in the orphans? As Australia sticks it’s chest out, proud of its stance, we will starve ourselves. All for a global contribution of nothing- it is no consequence what we do, really, and i don’t think any other national leader, apart from our minnow pacific partners, will pay any attention to what we do.

How about we do something responsible for the nation first, taking into account our impact, our economic dependency on so called ‘bad’ polluters and if we have to have this tax, invest in R&D in improving the minerals and agriculture we have. We need to improve our technology to allow our economic backbones’ use in this new religious world of climate change. Or, why don’t we lead the world in solar technology, or tidal generators, or SOMETHING, rather than hand it blindly to countries who wont use it responsibly or morally.

Margaret Gray says:

09:37am | 01/12/09

Jules,

Maybe you could show me where the legislative framework and regulations being proposed under an Australian ETS are?

Not the proposed Bill…the REGULATIONS.

You know, the L.A.W. laws that will be enforced once a Bill is passed.

You know the difference right?

I’d very much like to READ them and then be able to DEBATE them.

Penny Wong’s Ministry of Fresh Air website is not very forthcoming on the details.

Help us out would you?

D'oh says:

09:42am | 01/12/09

Thank God, I thought I would have to wait for Canberra’s ocean views (shame on you Colgo for that atrocious line) before an article like this would be posted on The Punch.

@ John Neve - those are the truest words you have ever written anywhere on The Punch.  This issue is as good as any to start proper public policy debate.

@Pedro - what an incredibly useful contribution to the debate [slaps forehead].  Now go back to your corner and join your mate Che and organise a shooting squad.

@iansand - if the ETS is passed (highly unlikely now that Abbott won the spill) there will be extra costs on industry.  Those costs will not be absorped by industry and be passed onto the end user i.e. us, just like a (shock/horror/disbelief/sarcasm).......tax.  We could call it a donation to our glorious government though if you prefer.

@Sarah - Howard’s policy’s were drafted before the data/email leak exposed the massive fraud in which the CRU was engaged.  Maybe just a case of mistaken chronology.

@Jules - see @iansand, although I would add that this “most fundamental changes to our economy of our lifetime” is to address a problem that is almost certainly not of human kind’s making.  Unless you are a denier (of the CRU leak that is)

@Andrew Goff - I agree with you 100% about reducing emissions…that actual are proven to adversely impact the environment.  As for your questions, whether the money goes to Maq bank or the government it is still being taken from US base on the AGW lie.  Damn straight I want Australia to take some leadership, I don’t want to lead the world as the most gullible unquestioning population willing to kneecap itself to address issue based on a false premise.

Carl Palmer says:

09:44am | 01/12/09

John I agree with most of what you have said. However if “Rudd’s carbon tax isn’t about the environment” which it isn’t, then why do you have most of your party supporting him? Surely the Phil Jones scandal in its self would be enough to at the very least shove this silly legislation into a committee or at best toss it out.

I watched Senator Penny Wong been interviewed and for the first time she started to stumble and fumble in her responses. Looks like people are asking more difficult questions and the government is finding it difficult to find answers. All the more reason for the Coalition to fiercely debate the merits or otherwise of this legislation. 

The only consensus on all of this was on the hypothesis and it still remains a hypothesis with more questions than answers. One has to wonder why after hundreds of billions of dollars of R&D that it still remains a hypothesis with dwindling support.

DocBud says:

10:13am | 01/12/09

“I strongly believe that reducing pollution can only be a good thing not only for the environment”

Agreed, John, so let’s start talking about pollution and stop talking about a harmless trace gas that is vital to life on earth.

iansand says:

10:22am | 01/12/09

D’oh@10:42 So if the price of widgets I need as part of the production of my doohickeys goes up, and I pass that cost on to consumers, it is a tax.  OK.  I’m glad you have made that clear.

JAYVEE says:

10:24am | 01/12/09

Well thanks John
This about one of the best laid out explanations of the whole ” Global Warming’ cum ‘Climate Change’ scam as it stands now that I have seen to date.
I also ,like most other people in this country do not like pollution either. Nor do I like that big truck belching diesel fumes which are sucked into my car ‘s air intake and I don’t like to see our beaches full of washed up flotsam either, or our previously pristine streams used as a virtual sewers. But that does not translate into me becoming some sort of an Eco Fanatic with a free Newborn Fear Religion thrown into boot.
It is an entirely different matter turning this into a Global Fear & Guilt campaign where everyone is made to pay so Politicians and Fast Buck percentage guys have another way of grabbing endless quantities of money out of our pockets And I am not even mentioning the ever increasing number of Climate Modelling ‘Schmientists” who are getting massive funding and/or jobs here, while still unable to tell us if it is gonna rain on your paddock tomorrow or not. ( even with lots of Peer Review )
I have already seen initial start up figures of the government raking in 15 Billion + a year and that is just the beginning!  We are talking serious Mullah here baby. Furthermore I do not care whether politicians are Labor, Liberal or members of the Ku Klux Fairies lobby . This is staggeringly serious money our politicians never ever had before and really too big to ignore! So what is a few serious furphies between political friends and in the know Eco stock market percentage predators having unending wet dreams about the potential cash on offer.
It would not be so bad if it was just us but the biggest polluters on this planet are exempt from this for ‘economic’ reasons. Which basically means our economy does NOT matter one iota in the world wide scheme of things. To make matters worse OUR supposedly Australian prime minister is flat out selling us out to these big polluters. I do not know whether Ruddy has some unfathomable inferiority complex towards the big guys on this planet and somehow feels the need to do some heavy duty crawling & dish licking in order to get some attention from them. Every time he choofs off on Aussie Airforce 1 & a Bit to the white house I get this idea that Obbie has a new variety of Pal on offer. One of these days we’ll see Barrack throw a boomerang onto the white house lawn and Ruddy running his heart out to go & fetch it, while some marine yells out: ” Ladies & Gentlemen! The Prime Minister of Australia (Bringing Our US of A’s boomerang back!) All to the marine band’s struggling tune of “Advance Australia Fair!”
And as for us Aussies? Just forget the bloody fries & Mac Suffer!

Sam of Sydney says:

10:34am | 01/12/09

Finally, Some Sense.

D'oh says:

11:05am | 01/12/09

@iansand - glad to be of service

Another option, you can call it a clayton’s tax….Yunno the tax you have when you don’t have a tax.  We can’t call it a tax now can we, that would mean real debate no wouldn’t it.

Forget The Politics says:

11:35am | 01/12/09

Let’s just introduce a modest, scalable and easy-to-understand carbon tax and be done with it.  Charge (say) $20 a tonne to start with and gradually ramp it up as industry adapts to the change .  Imports would be subject to carbon tax.  Exports would not.  Invest the money raised in renewables and green industry.  Easy!

Cameron Price-Austin says:

12:09pm | 01/12/09

At 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the most effective way Australia can help reduce climate change is to invest in research.

Pump money into alternative energy, agriculture and forestry research etc then export those findings to developing countries.

MudCrab says:

12:17pm | 01/12/09

Weel Andrew Goff you have got your wish. Australia is now leading the world in formally standing up to the complete scientific fraud that is man made global warming.

A happy day for sanity, reason and Australia

Geo says:

12:32pm | 01/12/09

And BLIND skepticism is a worry too - me mate WAYNE!

Grammar (and syntax) aside for a moment - although, on that particular score wouldn’t that indicate an analytical-detailed approach to you?
> The very same kind of approach that wouldn’t see someone just jump on either the ‘pro’ or ‘con’ bandwagon about something?
> A disciplined methodology that has taken the time and careful consideration required to evaluate exactly what’s going on?

Detail WAYNE - analytical detail, is what science is all about, WAYNE.

There is no confusion in my argument, and I presented you with the ‘living proof’ science on some things that should be a concern to anyone living in this country - and on this planet. And, by the way, those things are most certainly climate related. DUH!

Again, DAVE is doing very well on his own - in so far as arguments are concerned . . .

But this whole “thing” (it’s certainly not a debate) is NOT about the creation of waring religious or political factions here. It’s to do with what’s at stake if we DON’T act.

On on the score, my gripe is not about whether poor folk like you, Dave and me believe or disbelieve in something - as I keep saying, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

My problem lies in that we are about to be placed in an unfortunate position indeed - in the sense that that it will be NOT the environment that benefits from an ETS - but it will be all the money grabbers, the lobbyists, opportunists and schemers who will gain (and handsomely) out of all of this.

My point . . ? Thus, those who could’ve made a difference, will just get richer while ‘fiddling’ (and trading) - while Rome itself burns!

From that perspective - THE ETS (and NOT global warming or climate change) IS FREAKING A SCAM!

BULMKT says:

12:33pm | 01/12/09

Now that Liberal leadership issue is settled, I seriously think the Liberal party should seriously canvass the introduction of a CARBON TAX rather than an ETS. The public does want their political leaders to act on Climate Change but an ETS isn’t the solution whereas a Carbon Tax is.

It gives the Liberal party a genuine alternative to Rudd’s ETS without the massive distortions on our economy. It also tells Joe Public that the Liberal party are taking the cause of climate change seriously.

A carbon tax is superior to carbon cap-and-trade systems for seven fundamental reasons:
1.  Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
2.  Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
3.  Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
4.  Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
5.  Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas some cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.
6.  Carbon tax revenues would most likely be returned to the public through progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, hedge funds, stockbrokers, lawyers and consultants.
7.  Carbon tax won’t result in another “subprime” like financial crisis.

Check out the following links about CARBON TAX vs Cap & Trade

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/14/carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade-the-debate-we-never-had/

http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/

Cap-and-Trade’s Unlikely Critics: Its Creators
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011380094927137.html

Warren Buffett Slams “Cap and Trade” as a Regressive Tax on All Americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCsFsU_irY

In-Depth Look - Cap And Trade VS Carbon Tax - Bloomberg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e68pj5QkLME

Cap and Trade – Glenn Beck FOX (ignore the first 45seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prpODqoV4Vc

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket (another reason to dump the ETS and consider a Carbon Tax)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

And on the lighter side “Hide the Decline”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Matthew says:

12:41pm | 01/12/09

@CPA.  That is the best suggestion I have heard so far.  Let’s pump 7 billion into R&D, renewable resources.  The Govt. is happy to pump 45 billion into a NBN to demolish Telstra, why can’t they do the same, or are the coal lobbies/unions too much for KRudd to handle ?

Macon Paine says:

12:50pm | 01/12/09

@Jules
Unfortunetly for you and Penny Wong and all the other Tax huggers, denying the ETS is a tax is extremely disingenuous. Why would you deny it is a tax? There is no need for this and it’s just a diversionary tactic to distract people from discussing more important issues, like for example whether or not the PM is about to do a John Hewson and have no idea about what he is actually proposing, as evidenced by his refusal to answer a simple question about the price of milk under the ETS. Honesty is the best policy Jules especially if it is for our own benefit.

iansand says:

01:32pm | 01/12/09

D’oh@12:05 So it’s a CLAYTONS tax.  I see.  So you want to CALL it a tax even though you know it isn’t.  OK.  Although I can’t thank you for clarifying things this time.

stephen says:

04:40pm | 01/12/09

Dalby is out of water. Can it have yours ?

Currawalla says:

04:58pm | 01/12/09

@iansand 02:32, if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax and acts like a tax, then it bloody well is a tax.  Which I suspect you know very well but don’t want to admit because it might start a real debate, like all those leaked emails from the fairies at the bottom of the AGW garden.

Thank you, John Cobb, for introducing some calm common sense into the rubbish arguments that have passed for debate so far.  It seems the neo-religious rush to claim and impose infallibility may be coming from an unlikely aggregation of hard left green/reds, some temporarily unemployed merchant wankers and the usual perpetually ambitious academics. 

‘Nuf said.  I hope Pedro understands the grammar, he seems to think it’s important.

Front Row says:

06:33pm | 01/12/09

Pedro - You’re a schoolteacher, right?
BA from somewhere “special”?
Thought so.

Joel B1 says:

07:18pm | 01/12/09

iansand,

I’ve got a BSc (Hon) you don’t. So when I say the ETS uses dodgy science you better listen, because let’s face it, you don’t have the qualifications do you?
Still, why don’t you assume the moral high-ground and put all us educated people down, because Rudd is your God, albeit a false and hollow tin one.

Look forward to hearing from you in 2 years when Rudd The Saviour has buggered off to the UN.

thatmosis says:

08:38pm | 01/12/09

Heres a simple question for all you Climate Change Faithful that believe that the ETS will save the world. Suppose I had a car, say a 2008/9 ETS with all the whistles and bells and I advertised it in the paper telling the people that it was a once in a lifetime chance to own a unique piece of Australian History. You have to buy it sight unseen and take my word that it will do what its supposed to do and when you sign the papers and take delivery of it I will then set the price that you have to pay, at my discretion and no backing out. How many people in their right minds would enter into an agreement like that, 0.00000000001% but yet you expect the Australian public to accept that the KRudd’s Governments ETS will be any different??? Its exactly the same, sight unseen, no costings, no help to the environment and based on “modelling, spin and innuendo. Get a life.

Michael Andersen says:

06:33am | 02/12/09

Here, here!  This article is a refreshing change to those that continue to insist that the ETS will directly impact climate change.  As stated in the article, climate change has been happening for thousands of years, if not longer, and yes, mankind has made a contribution in some way to the impacts on climate change.  Mankind, however, has not CAUSED climate change to occur.  Mankind has not caused, in my opinion, the ongoing droughts or the unseasonal storms.  As far as the melting ice cap is concerned, has it ever really stopped melting?  Sure enough there are different rates of change associated with melting ice.  That is mathematically assured.  Has mankind contributed to the increased rate of change?  Possibly.  Will mankind slow or stop the rate of change?  Unlikely.

Climate change is not the issue!  What this government and those that follow must address is SUSTAINABILITY.  What are we going to do to ensure that makind will survive on this planet for the next hundred years and beyond?  We have to ensure that under the circumstances of a changing climate that we will continue to feed our populations. 

Reducing carbon is one aspect to address contributing to sustaining the environment for the survival of mankind.  There are many other issues to also be addressed.

Deforestation is a huge issue that seems to have lost popularity.  How is that we are no longer concerned with cutting down the world’s forests?  Instead there is this fixation on reducing carbon and nothing else.

Forget Copenhagen!

It is only just the start of what I believe will be a long process to achieve a global agreement on what needs to be addressed and how to address the issue through the implementation of a new international law.  Why do I say this?  Have we forgotten the Doha round of negotations (WTO) on modifying tariffs, etc, particularly with respect to agriculture.  The Doha round commenced in November 2001.  Only two or three days ago Pascal Lamy (Head of the WTO) urged all member states to bring closure to these negotiations in 2010.  If successful, that will have been nine years that 153 member states have been arguing about world trade.  Environmental sustainability, or climate change to the government, is a far greater issue.  I cannot see how 192 member states of the UN are going to reach some sort of agreement in a year or two.  Environmental sustainability is a global issue that needs to be addressed regionally.  What Australia does impacts the Pacific area.  What the UK does will impact their region.  As has been successfully achieved over the last 20 to 30 years has been the regionalisation of addressing trade, which could then be extended to addressing other major issues.  Similar, if you will, to the European Community.  ASEAN has committed to establishing an ASEAN Community by 2015.  It is these regions, in my opinion, that need to take responsibility for addressing multilateral issues.

I have drifted off track.

We need wide and open debate on what is currently termed “climate change”.  Understand it for what it really is.  Identify a bipartisan strategy that will not change under different governments, but will morph as demanded by need to better sustain our environment for our own survival.

The ETS is a tax.  The government has cleverly spun this to have people believe the creation of a new tax will prevent droughts and unseasonal weather.  They are misleading the Australian public.  Their actions and words are almost fraudulent.

Bring on the debate.

Anthony Cooper says:

08:22am | 02/12/09

John’s article is very good and does forward a valid point in that the debate is not about climate change, it’s about the mechanisms to address climate change.

I have never been a fan of deravitives trading (snake oil) purely due to it’s inherent speculative nature.

At the time of the last election, ETS was the only proposed solution by the major parties which really left me wonderin - why?

So now comes the difficulty: How do we get a public debate to focus on the mechanisms to address climate change and not get de-railed back into the climate sceptic arguement?

Initially, I was pretty unhappy with Tony Abbotts move. Now that I’ve slept on it, I think it’s the best political move I have ever seen for Australia.

Tony Cooper

Jen says:

08:23am | 02/12/09

If Professor David Bellamy thinks it’s a scam then this whole issue definately needs closer scrutiny.

DocBud says:

08:34am | 02/12/09

You are absolutely right, Acotrel, if the ETS had been passed, the experts tell us that, in anticipation of its 2011 start date, all the CO2 would run away and hide, temperatures would be comfortable every day, just the right amount of rain would fall, and never during a cricket test match, bush fires would put themselves out and winds will never rise above a gentle breeze, all just like it used to be.

Rohan says:

11:55am | 02/12/09

The scarwe campaign on Tony Abbott has already begun. That means Rudd has chucked a tanty and instructed the Abbott haters to unleash the vitriol.

http://vimeo.com/7913137

Advance & Keep Australia Fair says:

11:34am | 04/12/09

There is no doubt the ETS is a Tax but how it differs from all other Taxes is that it will allow brokers commission agents and big banks and the already established financially a slice of the action along the way. It also puts the tax on the people at an exposure to the market and to currencies. Imagine such a tax when the dollar fell to 49cents a few years back the tax would have been doubled over a couple of months!

Steve of Cornubia says:

08:06am | 06/12/09

As usual, contributions to this topic from Rudd’s blind sheep are mostly personal insults and attacks on the writer.

Have any of you noticed how many times an event or speech organised by the conservatives is ambushed by demonstrators and loudmouths? How often does the reverse happen? It seems that Lefties love to resort to abuse when they can’t carry the debate.

Richard Daniel says:

03:14pm | 05/09/10

All this talk about a tax on carbon should also reach as far as volcanoes which erupt. The single biggest polluter in the world today by many thousands of times more than the last 100 years of man made pollution is one decent eruption of which we have had at least three in the last 100 years. This is just crazy talk of taxing humans. If these do gooders really want to do something is what the USA & China are doing. Invest in new R&D, plan to ramp up green technologies, support industry to invest in green technologies etc etc. This seems more practical to bringing down future man made pollution than slugging every mum and dad in Australia with higher prices. Not one cent of a proposed tax will reduce any carbon emissions.

Allan Jones says:

01:00pm | 15/04/11

The cost of the technologies that could reduce Australia’s carbon footprint are very different, for example the Liberal plan of switching to Natural Gas from coal for our thirty 1000mw plants is around 35 billion Aud over time one at a time (achieving a 25% carbon total reduction).
The cost of “renewables” as stated in the zero carbon book for solar and wind is 370Billion Aud (Melb Institute), hard to do one at a time due to need for new poles and lines.(the zero carbon is 100% total reduction)
The eleven times the cost difference must end up in our power bills, yet the difference has not been illuminated by the Liberals, and the true cost of Gillards desire for solar and wind has not been reflected in the cost of the carbon tax debate so far.
Even if the renewables were to be able to supply all power required which is questionable, the cost is prohibitive, we should be looking at this also when debating the tax or ETS schemes, as the switch to Gas has already started and does not requre a tax or ETS (where gas has dominated the cost has come down compared to coal in the US).
Sadly Liberals are not pushing this debate to cover the cost of alternate technologies or who and how we will pay for them if Labour decides to subsidise solar and wind as there are no investors in such schemes without taxpayer support.
We will simply subsidise ourselves if we go to unreliable & costly alternatives to Natural Gas and we don’t have to remove all carbon either.

Liam says:

12:05pm | 21/08/11

It is very simple.  The carbon tax is a scam to make the rich fat pigs richer and fatter and gain more control over our countru and its weak kneed gutless politicians this video says it well enough.
http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/

Nebs says:

11:57pm | 08/02/12

I am very much ilcnined to agree with Brian and Andrew Murray.I do not understand the CPRS/ETS one little bit (and I’ve tried to work it out lately) but I can see it being abused by the big polluters (because it is cap and trade).  Whereas a Carbon Tax just makes sense on the most basic level as described by Brian, Andrew, Tim and Jarrah.