Well this is offensive, but mostly it's just stupid.

Dan, a committee is a committee, it is not the Parliament. It recommends to Parilament. Democracy (such as it is) still operates in the Parliament.

You don't like listening to experts on global warming (the real ones, not the self-appointed ones)? Would you listen to experts on how to build a 747, or would you get in a plane designed by "ordinary people"? This is an anti-intellectual rant.

And no, you didn't make any credible link between the Greens and James Lee. You can tell the Greens are gaining in power (though they're still relatively minor players) because the hysteria level is rising. And please, the old furphy about a minority holding "the balance of power" being undemocratic - they only have influence if the major parties split. Nobody, on their own, holds a balance of power.

Dan, Norman Lindsay's The Magic Pudding is a better read - and just as close to reality.

How unsurprising that OLO would publish a dumb article written by an industry shill that tries to link the Greens with a lunatic on the other side of the world.

Same old, same old. Nothing to see here.

oh the outrage, from the usual industry shills. Funny how it looks when you're on the receiving end.

good article and what most people think of the greens and their magic pudding view of the world. democracy is for other people, the greens know what needs to be done, hilarious.

This is nonsense. A process of deciding the best machinery for a carbon price is exactly that. A process to decide whether or not there should be a carbon price is quite different, and the first doesn't preempt the second.

Just like a process to come up with a proposed machinery for a republic didn't preempt the process of deciding whether or not we should have a republic, if you recall.

Here's Geoff Davies again, this time escribing this article as an "anti-intellectual rant". Well nobody would accuse you of being an intellectual, Geoff, so you have nothing to worry about.

Geoff's the bloke who thinks that the East Anglia climategate spivs have been "exonerated" by a phoney inquiry which took no evidence from anybody but the spivs themselves.

The global warming cult is now in full blown denial:

the surface temperature record has not been contaminated by unmitigated "adjustments" of the record, always upward

climategate didn't happen and if it did, it didn't mean what the perpetrators said it did in their own infamous emails;

democracy can't be trusted; we should "suspend democracy" to impose Green dictatorship because they know what's good for you

we need a "carbon price" to fix global warming - how that would happen is never explained

and despite the fact that more than 50 per cent of Australia's CO2 emissions are from coal-fired electricity generation and road transport (you know, Geoff, the trucks that distribute food to big cities?), the Greens and Labor are going to make EVERYTHING substantially more expensive than it is now - food and groceries, water, electricity, gas, public transport, private transport - EVERYTHING.

The creepy left in full flight. And so many of them seem to have infested the Australian National University.

How come you never mention real climate scientists, Geoff?

Try here: http://www.petitionproject.org

Jeremy, seriously, you think the greens are putting this up, with all the effort to exclude an debate or any other process coming out except the one they dictate, without any intention to then use that to justify immediate carbon taxes.

that's either the most breathtaking naivety or the most slippery spin (expected from the greens of course) I've seen on olo for some time.

You think the greens are actually putting up something where a conclusion may not be what they want .. dear god, that's something I'd expect a child to swallow, but not an adult - I understand now why the greens have a following.

As Dan Denning points out, the Greens think they are always right. What better way to practise this in Parliament, than to appoint like-minded pledged-to-the-outcome members to a committee such that the committee's outcome is guaranteed. That is the Greens' idea, or should I say ideology, of democracy.

Unfortunately, the Greens are not the only ones with that idea. One has to look no further than the IPCC, which adopted the same system of working -- ignore, or better still exclude , those experts who have an opposing view. Look at the damage that the IPCC has done by pedalling the assertion of anthropogenic global warming as science. The IPCC went so close to seducing national governments into agreeing to subject themselves to the mercy of an ill-informed immoral environmentalist world order

Yes, it's like fly fishing, throw the bait on the water, & the loonies, rather than fish, come roaring to the top.

You're right KenH, the ANU has the best academics money can buy. It would be a comedy, if it weren't so serious, watching them all dance to the required tune.

What I really would like to know is how/why all of these people who are so committed to some form of carbon tax know that man's emissions of CO2 are causing climate change?

So far as I can see, there is no proof at all. No evidence. All we have are models that assume positive feedbacks that deliver the scary warming projections. When asked for support for these feedback assumptions, the line goes dead. There is no answer. There is no evidence.

Please, can someone provide EVIDENCE and PROOF that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

By the way, I am not interested in the basic physics that suggest around 1 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2 (if it happens). No sceptic I know challenges that. The key issue is the feedbacks, for which the evidence I have seen is for neutral or negative feedbacks.

A parliamentary committee with a brief to discuss putting a price on carbon, whilst excluding those who disagree with the basic proposition, is no different to the IPCC brief into man-made climate change, which excludes or ignores all those who disagree with the basic proposition.

And as for these supposed citizen's assemblies. I participated in a three day exercise where a "representative" group of citizens were tested on their attitudes to Climate Change, and their willingness to spend money to fix it.

They were then pummelled with what can only be called alarmist propaganda from "scientists", clearly designed to increase the level of alarm among the citizens present. The question sessions were very tightly controlled so that the few sceptics present could not challenge the 'science' presented, even though it was very shaky, and mutually contradictory between different presenters.

It was very clear to me that this was an exercise in manipulating opinion of the "citizen's" assembly.

Comparisons with a Jury process are not valid. In a court, both the prosecution and the defence have the opportunity to make their case. Searching cross examination is encourage. A Jury will only make its decision when it has heard all the evidence from both sides.

For all of those fools who think the Greens are a "progressive party" concerned with primarily "enviromental issues", I attach an extract of the taxation policies from the Greens official policy. People should know what the Greens stand for before commenting or providing them with support.

The Australian Greens will

Taxation

22.reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by:
1)reducing tax breaks for high income earners;
2)removing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions
3)removing the concessional arrangements for Capital Gains Tax;
4)abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate ;
5)introduce a new top marginal tax rate of 50 per cent

23.introduce an estate tax

26.implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution including:
1)a carbon tax levied on generators of mains-supplied electricity or gas
2)a national carbon trading scheme; and
3)other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.

29.return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions.

30.limit tax deductibility for salaries & salary-related expenses for any individual employee to $1million per year.

Carbon is involved in everything that is produce and consumed. There is already a price on carbon. The problem is that the greens don't like it.

Does anyone seriously think that a parliamentary committee can't waste time just as effectively as a citizen's forum? All Gillard has to do is keep us out of doing anything foolish for another year or two. By then the AGW movement will have shrivelled away to James Hansen, Al Gore and "Gav", and we can quietly back out of it without anyone's reputation getting too badly mauled.

If the Greens think they can stop the collective Sir Humphreys of the Public Service from deliberating just as long as they find it expedient, they have a lot to learn.

Why do so many people loathe Geoff Davies?

His book Economia is easily the best and most intelligent book written in Australia (and one of the best in the world) on the relation between our politics, economics and the environment.

And on the nature and function of the current monetary system. A system that systematically transfers all of the wealth to the already wealthy.A system that inevitably trashes both the planet and the best of human culture.

When the bottom line rules then everything inevitably gets flushed down the toilet.

Have you read the "news"?

Angry Oak
You tories should probably stop listing the greens detailed policies as they actually look good to most people.
Stick to what you're good at. Scare campaigns about drugs and immigration and "great big new taxes" are the way your lot do it.

To the Author of this dribble of an article
Would you like me to point out some of the nutjobs on the right who have blown up buildings and sent bombs in the mail and much much more. How are they not just as connected to the libernats as this apparent psychopath is, according to you, connected to Australias Green party?

A vile and disturbing piece of wannabe propaganda that even fails at that sad duty and brings disrepute and dishonour to OLO for publishing it

Mik

You obviously doesn't run a business, or enjoy being left alone by Government.

And for the record, I'm not a TORY, I am someone who objects to socialist Governments after my grandfather died defending the freedoms that we are now on the cusp of losing.. you'll call this a scare campaign, so no need to write back.

By the way, you should try and limit the amount of times you finish a sentence with a preposition, it’s annoying. (or is defending the Queens English another "Tory evil".

We wasted the last parliament because all the effort was put into setting up an ETS. The risk is that we will do the same this time round given that putting a price on carbon will run into most of the complications encountered in the CPRS investigation.

Alternatives to putting a price on carbon need to be considered for dealing with the major sources of emissions. We should be comparing direct action, putting a price on clean and regulation instead of concentrating on a complex attempt to develop an answer to everything.

there will always be a third party, a bastard child of the majors, a waif looking for relevance..

It would seem that Labor forgot that it doesn't have a majority. Usually, everyone toes the party line, so by having the Greens wrest this from Labor it would usually mean it would go through undebated (Labor+Greens in the Senate would seem to have a majority from July 2011).

I wonder who got shafted in this negotiations?
- Labor - have they not grasped the extent of their possible minority or realised how this opens them up to attacks about giving in too easily?
- Greens - can they add up? 72+1=73; non-Labor+Coalition=77.
- Greens voters - the Greens can be "seen" to be doing something without actually doing anything.

Oh, and Angry Oak: I really wonder how many people looked at the Greens as a whole package instead of just as an environmental party or place to park their protest vote...

ps - jeremy is being sarcastic?

http:///www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Democracy is a weird and wonderful thing.
What about a ten person representative committee on taxation?
Since 50% of Aussies make less than $40k a year, they get 5 seats.
As only about 10% of Aussies make more than $100k, they get 1 seat.
Wouldn't that be more 'representative' and democratic than all members of the committee coming from the highest tax bracket?

grim, how about those who pay the most tax, and thus fund the greater works of government, get the most representation?

Those who pay bugger all, get what they put in, bugger all

what could be fairer and more democratic?

so I hear it's 10% of Australian pay over 60% of the taxes, the next 10% pay 20% and so it goes, down at the low end .. they pay bugger all if anything, but all want to determine what happens to the money - all of a sudden they want things to be spread evenly .. right up to paying the same portion of their earnings? I think not.

As I said, rpg, Democracy is a weird and wonderful thing.
Democracy is about the equal rights of people, not of dollars.
I am curious; would you really prefer to live in a society where votes are proportional to the amount of money one makes?
Personally, I found this notion in the article to be rather appealing:
"Each term, a new randomly selected group of conscripts is drafted to serve in Canberra. They are paid the minimum wage. You can be sure Parliament wouldn’t sit for long and that the government would generally stay out of most people’s lives and wallets, affording Australians the time and money to be good parents and neighbours."
Our politicians are still willing to sacrifice the lives of our children in foreign wars. What sacrifices are they prepared to make, for the sake of their country?

Hello Angry Oak

Could you please tell me just what you think is wrong with the Greens tax policies which you listed yesterday?

As Mikk says, they would actually look good to a lot of people.

Of course, any significant degree of tax reform is going to disadvantage some people to some extent. Tax reform that changes the balance in favour of the little bloke and makes the big bloke who already has heaps of money fork out a little bit more has got to be a good thing, surely.

But of course, changes of this sort need to be done very carefully so that people don’t get significantly disadvantaged to the point where their businesses become unviable or their rather small incomes get significantly reduced.

There will always be a lot of opposition and suspicion from people that could really benefit from these sorts of changes. And of course, there will be vehement opposition from the big and powerful end of town.

But in the end, we NEED these sorts of reforms, very badly. We need to break down the gap between the rich and the poor, break down the us-and-them mentality and implement a system that helps alleviate the very strong feeling in the general community that our government is in bed with big business.

What a BIZARRE article!

Dan Denning calls James Lee crazy!!

As CJ Morgan would say:

Pot, meet kettle!

Part 1

Ludwig, Mika
I’d be delighted. You will excuse grammatical errors as I am writing this in my 15 minutes for Lunch.

Let me illustrate it this way, I ask you to suspend your current ideology and consider the following;

Hypothetically, Let’s try your "redistribution of wealth" tax reforms. For the sake of argument, lets restrict the trial to an island.... a place that is green friendly, let’s say Tasmania. Further, let’s assume that all taxation that Tasmania generates is allocated wholly to Tasmania and it receives no federal assistance.

Now for some policies!

In Tasmania we will:-

• Increasing the availability of welfare and significantly Increase welfare payments such as Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipients, sole parent benefit and many more.

• remove all tax incentives for the wealthy and increase the marginal tax rate to 50%

• Remove all tax deductions to those on the higher marginal rate.

• Bring in death taxes for higher income earners.

• Increase company tax.

• Increase the cost of carbon emitters – coal fire stations, manufacture sectors, thus increasing the “expense” section of all business balance sheets.

• 100% renewable energy – NUCLEAR FREE

• Allow open borders.

Here we won’t even explore their other policies, just the ones listed.
Now remember, mainland Australia has not made these changes, they only exist in Tasmania. What do you think the implications would be for:

Im presuming angry has hit his post limit for the day. Dont ya hate when that happens. It brings good debates to a shuddering halt and they can be hard to pick up again. Or maybe his 15 minutes ran out and he forgot to come back after work. Never mind. Its been a big day.
Ill have a go at what you put up so far.

• Increasing the availability of welfare and significantly Increase welfare payments such as Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipients, sole parent benefit and many more.

Why do this? Why not create some jobs, build some badly needed infrastructure, hire a few more teachers, police, firemen, doctors, nurses. A much better idea than handing out more welfare.

• remove all tax incentives for the wealthy and increase the marginal tax rate to 50%

I would raise it to 90% for income over $1 million a year. Progressive taxation was what payed for all the infrastructure we have run down for decades. All the roads and sewers and railways and dams and electric networks. Bridges, hospitals, schools. All neglected and in desperate need of replacement. Think of all the money companies would have to actually put towards producing if they stopped paying such massive salaries. Which they would do if heavy progressive taxation was reintroduced.

• Remove all tax deductions to those on the higher marginal rate.

Remove all tax deductions for everyone. I really like the greens idea.
"26.implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution." That and a tax on unused land and capital gains tax increased.

• Bring in death taxes for higher income earners.

Absolutely. Unearned money is immoral and receiving massive inheritances is against everything our so called meritocracy stands for. Surely you can see the inequity of someone receiving millions/billions just because their father died not because they had earned it. Especially compared to someone who works like a dog but doesnt have rich parents. What did James Packer do to "earn" his

billions? Yes daddy no daddy three bags full daddy. Woo now I get a billion dollars. Death taxes give us all a vaguely even start.

• Increase company tax.

Sounds fine. We have one of the best, most stable and educated countries in our region. We attract many companies here because of that. It is right that business pay a premium for our high standards. they would also benefit from the increased infrastructure spending, lowering of crime etc.

• Increase the cost of carbon emitters – coal fire stations, manufacture sectors, thus increasing the “expense” section of all business balance sheets.

Unless they start economising and stop waste. Plenty of businesses have found many ways they could cut back on energy use and save themselves some money in the process.

• 100% renewable energy – NUCLEAR FREE

Sounds good and if I remember rightly that is actually the case in Tasmania as we speak. They even have an excess that they sell to Victoria. Gotta love the hydro. Maybe Tasmania wasnt such a good choice for an example.

• Allow open borders.

Within quarantine and sustainability limitations. Although a move towards open borders for people worldwide would suit me fine. Why is it that only money can move freely around the world but not people. Most people love their place/country of birth and wish to remain there if they can. That they cant or that they suffer deprivation if they do shames all of us and is something I will always fight to rectify.

What would the implications be?
A lot more public works and infrastructure that will benefit all of the population. More doctors, teachers, police etc. Less, or better still no, unemployment. Less crime and drugs and alienation and antisocial behavior. Less pollution and hopefully less climate change. Less wealthy businesses and individuals willing and able to corrupt our representatives with their "donations". Less hereditary families of ingrates like the packers and the murdochs.
There would definitely be much more and probably a few problems and difficultys as well but its getting late and I need some sleep.

Sorry for my abrupt departure, Family health disaster.

Part 2

Here we won’t even explore their other policies, just the ones listed.
Now remember, mainland Australia has not made these changes, they only exist in Tasmania. What do you think the implications would be for:

1) Those on the mainland who are currently on welfare. These include Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipient, sole parent benefit and many more- My view is that welfare dependent people on the mainland would identify that Tasmania has easier access and much higher payments. You would witness an increase of welfare dependent individuals flocking to Tasmania (as seen in Canada’s British Columbia).

2) Current manufacturers. – my view is that manufacturers would quickly identify that if they move to the mainland, they would be subject to a lower tax. It is obvious that many would leave Tasmania and relocate on the mainland, if not immediately, then at a particular point.

3) Mining companies – although there a many great deposits in Tasmania, they are unable to be “relocated” – my view, any future project that the company would look to invest in would probably be made on the mainland, where there too are many great deposits (Qld & WA), but can be extracted more profitably.

4) Entrepreneurs and high income earners. My view, if they can do their same work or job on the mainland, then they would be mad not to go.

5) Wind, solar, to be used, with no back up coal powered fire station (or the sensible option of nuclear). Backups can’t be considered in the case of poor conditions conducive to renewables because as you know, these can’t be turned on with a flick of a switch. Such back ups would have to be running continually to be effective at all. Remember that the population may increase (open borders significantly) – My view, people would object to constant power outages because of conditions (we are talking today’s technology.

Part 3

In conclusion, it is obvious that under the above proposal, there would be a reduction in the revenue base with the high taxation contributors (people and companies) simply relocating inland thus stripping Tasmania of the revenue. Additionally, costs for the Tasmanian government would increase markedly, with an influx of welfare dependent people, pensioners and others, increasing the welfare costs significantly.

Now you might say, this is a ridiculous example because in this scenario it would obviously hurt tasmainia, given it has such a small population, and rest of the mainland has “company friendly laws” and does not have a price on carbon.

I just ask you to consider that Australia is an island, and relative to the world we have a very small population, the rest of the world does not have a price on carbon, and to adopt the Greens “taxation reform” would allow us to say that our major competitors have “company friendly laws”

Dear Ludwig
The problem with some Green policy is deception.
The Greens say they are opposed to a higher % of GST or extending it to other products (Item 25) BUT in the next breath say they will increase taxes on goods that have an environmental impact.(Item 26)
This potentially covers more than just petrol, power and water eg cigarettes, alcohol and disposable baby nappies, are all single use items that could attract the Greens 'environmental tax'.

But Mum's the word ......

Especially on disposable nappies which deserve to be highly taxed.
This product does not biodegrade and now that kids stay twelve months longer in nappies, the plastic fills up our dumps. The nappies that decompose are more expensive and have to be purchased online.

Perhaps, the Greens don't want to offend yummy mummy voters because they have a policy on plastic bags but no policy on baby nappies.

The Greens are deceptive about the estate tax. The really well off may escape this tax by purchasing property O/S and/or owning a multi million dollar family in Australia.

Those who will pay this estate tax will be the battlers, most of whom will have already sold their family home to fund their alzheimemer's high care accommodation. All that may be left are a few shares or cash or family treasures. After a stranger comes in and values your parent's treasures (none of which could be sold for the value it is given) your estate will pay a tax, then you divvy up their hard earned nest egg that was to help with the grand-kids education.

The Greens say the family farm will be exempt. But they do not define a family farm? Is it to be separate to the family home? Or could some estates have two properties exempt from this tax?

And this tax will be backdated to 2010. It's on their website....