But is it OK to tell the customer how much the carbon tax has influenced the price rise? It must be, because my energy supplier has done so: electricity is to go up by 17.6 per cent, and 14 of that 17.6 per cent is due to the carbon tax.

For more on this: www.donaitkin.com

...But of course, the mass of the masses will simply do what all others civilisations before them have done; survive from one day to the next, (with fingers crossed).

Great post; as well as introducing an economy killing tax this government is also intent on stopping any criticism of its destruction of Australia.

It is though Australia is being invaded from within as well without by the 'asylum seekers'.

Is it an offence under the various carbon tax governence and enforcement procedures to call this government a traitorus force?

The enormous efforts the ALP has gone through to entrench this ludicrous tax and protect itself from criticism for doing so indicate just how firmly they are wedged under the thumb of their Green puppeteers. This administration will go down in history as one of the blackest periods in Labor history.

Just as it had to purge itself of both Communists and Catholics in the 1950s and 1960s to re-emerge as a political force in the 1970s, so the ALP will have to purge itself of Green lunacy to re-emerge after the next Abbott administration -- if it ever does.

Can I suggest the following form of words?

Dear customer we have regrettably been forced to increase our prices. The reasons behind this increase are a general increase in our costs in providing you with a quality service. These costs include increase in wages, increase in price of raw materials and in the price of fuel (gas, electricity). We can are not able to proportion the exact amount due to each of these several factors; undoubtedly the CARBON TAX is also a contributing factor.

Jon J,

At what age do you think Tony Abbott might choose to retire as PM?

"At what age do you think Tony Abbott might choose to retire as PM?"

Getting off-topic here, but I think we are heading into a period of short administrations -- maybe just one term at a time -- as people make their displeasure with the current system known. Ultimately there must be political reform, which in one way or another will eventually result in evidence-based administration, rather than the ideologically-driven nonsense we have now. In terms of following empirical principles, our government is still back in the 1600s.

Slam carbon scams : Comments

>> It is though Australia is being invaded from within as well without by the 'asylum seekers'. <<

Now that's a 'dog-whistle' comment if there ever was one.

Don, you say:

"But is it OK to tell the customer how much the carbon tax has influenced the price rise? It must be, because my energy supplier has done so: electricity is to go up by 17.6 per cent, and 14 of that 17.6 per cent is due to the carbon tax."

I received my energy bill recently:
Supply charges up 45%
Usage charges up 41%

Of that 41%, ONLY 8% is due to the carbon tax. I am thinking of switching suppliers anyway.

Perhaps you should contact the ACCC or IPART.

It seems you are being charged too much for the impact of the carbon tax.

Jon J, your remarks are usually spot-on, and certainly more "evidence-based administration" would help. But that won't solve the problem which is inherent in democracy itself. Basically democracy is just socialist fascism by instalments. Please see this link - the sections further down the page on Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Government: http://catallaxyfiles.info/

I'm glad you wrote on this subject Michael. Yes it is good that the ACCC is on the watch for carbon scams / gouging, such as that portended by the Housing Industry Association claiming $5,500 carbon cost on a new house (more than 100% exaggeration).

But you seem rather cynical about estimation of carbon sequestration / reduction (by tree plantings, soils, manure treatment etc). I wouldn't be worried about any of the 4 methodologies you mentioned, believe you me (as a scientist involved in measuring C sequestration in tree plantations), it is quite possible to do this with high confidence. The Greenhouse Friendly and GGAS bureaucracies were extremely rigorous and demanded much field measurement and low side estimations to account for variability. The DOCC will be equally rigorous; they will try to exclude rather than allow any method that may be even slightly 'dodgy'. There is no incentive for them to do otherwise and Govt bureaucracies have plenty of oversight in their systems.

Where there will be problems is if the Coalition get their 'soil magic' policy through. It was based on bogus soil credits like those of the now defunct Chicago Carbon Exchange soil carbon credits. These were neither measured, verified or protected by land use covenants - (all Kyoto requirements). They claim such 'credits' will account for over 65% of their emissions reductions under their 'direct action' plan!

PS The term carbon is really the only shorthand word they could come up with for the long list of greenhouse gases, over 80% of which contain carbon (e.g. CO2, CH4, CFC chemicals).

Roses1's post on carbon sequestration unsurprising, given he consults for Carbon Neutral Ltd and group called "Climate Changes Now".

Emissions units now deemed by ASIC to be "financial products". Hopefully, it will make release of EU PDFs specifying all the product risk factors (eg: uncertainties about climate science, international regulatory issues - especially post-Kyoto, integrity of international EU issuers, etc)mandatory.

As a regulator, it presumably will want to be sure it isn't in the business of giving a Green light to another sub-prime scam.

Hopefully, it also will insist on terminology that does not mislead public into believing CO2 is a dangerous "pollutant".

Carbon, n., 1. A non-metallic element with symbol C and atomic number 6. 2. Carbon has several allotropes, including graphite, diamond and amorphous carbon. 3. Origin: From Latin, carbo - "coal".

Carbon dioxide, n., 1. A colourless, odourless, incombustible gas present in the atmosphere and formed during human expiration, decomposition and combustion of organic compounds and in the reaction of acids with carbonates. 2. Used in carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers and as dry ice for refrigeration.

And why is water vapour - which does not "contain carbon" - so often conveniently missing from the decarboniser's GHG list? It is, after all, the most abundant atmospheric "greenhouse gas".

"Water vapor is also the most potent greenhouse gas owing to the presence of the hydroxyl bond which strongly absorbs in the infra-red region of the light spectrum.

Water vapor (H2O)
~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%)"