@saltpetre

further to the solar energy issue Germany has a power capability from wind of 25.8GW as of last year with more coming on line. This is about 10% of Australia's power consumption AND is used for base load production. (Had to qualify that as no doubt there will be a stream of invective from the team that you can't generate base load power with renewables).

oh well at least China will keep buying our coal to keep LL and co in comfort :)

Pity we just don't get it at government levels but I guess the politics is impossible; if or when the Libs are returned we can be consigned to the bottom of the energy heap for a very long time.

Peter King,

I'm not sure the Libs could ignore the growing push within the Oz community for action on greenhouse as a matter of considerable priority. Hopefully the next election run-up will shed more light. Meanwhile, Labor's nervous "rush" to take action, however questionable (C tax), is a worry. Labor looks to this issue as a last ditch "Lazarus" to renew flagging support as the house crumbles - NBN problems, Pink Batts lingering, budget etc.

My perceptions are such that I can only hope Labor will do just enough to send its credentials finally down the tubes, and give us an early election, but without too much irreparable damage. Some Independent light is showing.

It's a pity though when a "fresh" government gets in after years in waiting that it feels driven to embark on some "grand" schemes. Gough revisited by Kevin, exacerbated by Julia. Collective delusion.

Thanks for the update on alternatives action elsewhere. The more that's done, the more hope we have. Home solar PV/HWS makes a lot of sense in Oz - but Labor saw handouts and school halls (and Pink Batts) as more important. Elementary, dear Watson?

And what happened to low-cost housing? Wha', wha' what's that you say?? (This is Kev/Jul speaking - what planet are you from?)

Wind is good, but I like hydro (and maybe water diversion from the north could thus be more cost-justifiable). Alternative fuel is a great priority - shale oil?, gas, methane conversion?

Base load - my preference is still solar (for Oz), with hydro dam storage (pump water up, hydro water down), or molten magma storage and steam-driven generators.

By the way, who or what is LL?

Ammonite, my money is still with Abbott, mostly because I don't see a chance of a reversal to Malcolm. Not all that keen on Malcolm anyway. Personal preference. Though Tony ain't prrrfect.

nicco, I agree it has to be a choice, particularly as Oz is a small emitter, but our economy needs bolstering anyway and green jobs is better than no jobs. And we'd be doing our bit.

@Saltpetre

LL == Leo Lane, Grand Inquisitor (Exxon title perhaps?) :)

Why are we paranoid about super taxing mining or resource based industries? What does it do, it ensures when commodity prices are high we also benefit and it is not just the corporations and their shareholders who benefit from depleting the resources involved. Nobody should deny good returns on risk capital but the same industries gain considerable concessions from the owners of those resources, both in the establishment of infrastructure and ongoing. For example, from where do the iron miners get their water (depleting perhaps our most valuable resource). How much do they pay for their huge energy consumption compared to ordinary citizens. How much do they contribute to the education of our own young people instead of allowing them to fulfill their needs with those they bring into Australia as tradesmen etc., to to share our other resources provided by us such as health care, education of their future children etc.

While they ingratiatingly state that they recognise that they must pay more, they do not accept the prospect of super profit taxes. Why? Surely this is a great option, low average tax when things are not so good, high average tax when things are booming. Could it be that they just don't want to share good times with the owners of the resource!

Yet their is no reason why they should be singled out for super profit taxes. Why shouldn't all super profits be subject to stepped increases in tax?

It is just another form of sliding scale taxation which is entirely applicable, especially when the benefits of scale to bottom line profit are taken into account, and the steps taken to more rapidly deplete our resources resulting also in fewer,albeit more highly paid, jobs (resulting in lower wages/tonne produced)and sending our dollar through the roof (resulting in a lower price per tonne in $A terms - but why would this matter to a multi-national dealing predominantly in $US).

A very complex scenario which I can hardly believe is not manipulated to the benefit of shareholders regardless of the effect upon the owners of the resources.

Teddy Bear,

This is a complex issue, and you have covered the spectrum well.

Our tax system certainly seems in need of revision, and I was hoping the Henry Tax Review would provide some reasoned and reasonable options.
I haven't seen any outcome, and I don't trust our Fed government to get it right.

My preference for the mining sector is to correctly price royalties - but these are a State tax, and yet another reason why I despair at our multi-layered system of government. My reasoning is firstly that royalties are direct, and could be agreed as an average world price percentile - thus giving reasonable assurance for the life of a mine. Secondly it weeds out smaller, non-efficient mining projects which would never be going to pay any tax. (The latter seems harsh, but I favour efficiency, and would also prefer if all our mines were locally owned - non-level field, but who else complies?)
Big miners may not provide as many jobs, but are more efficient, reliable and productive - including in contribution to revenue. Royalties don't differentiate between developmental phase, boom phase, and scale-down phase.

The other part of the equation is company tax, set at a reasonable rate irrespective of industry, and if necessary with a higher top-end rate. Julia and Co were talking of reducing company tax as a concession on the introduction of super profits tax - some sort of redistribution scheme? Bit like carbon tax offsets? Phooey.

We may have only three levels of government, and some would point to the US with its multiplicity, but do we really need State governments? GST and income tax redistribution - bargaining - and the States spend the money however they like, and they still have State taxes - land tax, stamp duty, payroll tax? and royalties. At local level some councils charge exorbitant development and infrastructure fees, while others don't charge enough and have to seek increases in council rates to offset. Standardisation? There is none.

We need some reviews, and some clear thinking.

It is ironic that warmists deride skeptics as behaving politically, when the warmist case is politically based.

Human-caused dangerous global warming has been promoted by government and NGO activists since the 1985 UN-sponsored Villach conference. After much expensive searching, there is still no compelling evidence of a link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.

Yet the absence of scientific justification does not stop the Government from proceeding with a carbon tax. In her internal sales script, Julia Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons, a claim that would make even a snake oil salesman blush.