Watch this clip, and then ask yourself whether there is any doubt that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan categorically went to the elections promising that there would be no carbon tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

Julia is now claiming that she was always pushing a climate change agenda and this is just semantics.

However, if she was always intending to push for a carbon tax then the statement "there will be no carbon TAX under a government I lead" was a bald faced lie.

The term Juliar Gillard should then be applied from here on in.

Yes she said it.
Would have not introduced it if she won a mandate.
It probably is still her wish not to have one.
No one not you not me foresaw the result of the election.
Both sides tried to cobble together a hung parliamentary government.
Made offers to the greens and the independents.
A wise and informed poster reminds us of past conservative governments.
Who for years, used the Democratic Labor Party to get legislation past the Senate.
We also have the evidence of most here.
Howard with trading and offers not unlike Labor and greens bought [and in doing killed] the Australian Democrats.
IF ONLY we all could see what your leader offered both greens and independents to get power.
Yes Gillard said it, yes she broke her word,she is a failure but had no other path.
Just maybe SM you are not aware of the reality's of a hung Parliament.
I will read your response with true interest search every word for Understanding and balance.

Belly,

These are your words and excuses. Juliar is not saying this. She is saying that she always intended to put a price on carbon, and that her promise is "semantics" and "taken out of context".

Juliar has not had the balls to personally admit this to everyone.

Julia fibs.

And Belly protesting that "Tony does too" doesn’t make it any more excusable.

Julia fibbed about the carbon tax.
Julia fibbed about border protection.

[This space has been intentionally left blank to provide room for further fibs that will come to light later into her reign of error]

It reminds me of other threads where the international conventions signed in our name without consultation were highlighted.

There really ought to be a national court of justice where fibbing pollies could be brought to account . Except it couldn’t one of our ( ab)normal courts, since most judges and lawyers and pollies move in the same circles—to much scope for buddy deals.

I suggest a court fashioned on the French Revolutionary or the Maoist China People Court model – bet that would give them cause for deep thought (it that were possible !) before making election promises.

I can see it now:
“Citizen Julia, for issuing false and misleading promises, you are hereby sentenced to twenty years hard labor working on the NBN tunnel system" –Whoopie!

SM, but what is Julia really up to?

Let’s just think about this. Julia has just done a monumental back flip and been accused of lying and deceit. For this she is paying a very high price personally and publicly damaging the ALP “brand” even further. She knew these risks fully when she announced it, yet she did it anyway to appease the Greens.

So what is the political “quid pro pro”? By paying such a high price one would have to assume that there is something she sees, as worth paying that price for?

Is she focusing on the next election in the hope that she can sustain her minority government long enough to effect enough “damage control” to win again?

Is she drawing out the Greens by introducing their policies in a way that allows them to crash and burn from their own radicalism? If so how does that help her government post July 1.

Has she actually announced a “claytons” carbon framework that no one will ever agree on?

Is she ignoring the Senate position post July 1, and relying on a back bench/Independents revolt and the opposition to block passage through the lower house, which again might provoke self destructive reactions from the Greens?

Is she simply so arrogant that she thinks she can dismiss public reaction to her policy?

If supply is blocked she faces dismissal or resignation and seems unlikely to increase her seats at a fresh election, unless of course she destroys the credibility of the Greens in the process and plans to convert their seats to the ALP? Can she have a half Senate election?

I haven’t worked out what the game is, or even if there is one, this just seems like the “march of folly, the pursuit of that which is contrary to self interest”

No she would not dare a double election.
I have said she said that, only the truly uncharitable will not admit she never guessed it would be a hung Parliament.
One that never would exist, without trade offs.
Overlook pretend it never happened, intently stare in to the distance and say lies, but the silly lady had little choice.
She and Abbott had to bend twist and turn reward and beg minority's to win government.
My companions on this thread, so far, would never ever raise a sweat, never complain, defend till death Abbott if he had won and done just what Gillard has.
I condemn her, and Abbott, but look in other directions than this thread for balanced comments.
I never take my gear out of the 4x4 to fish in dry dams.
PS
double dissolution is this country's only path, oh just maybe an end to the senate, or one vote one value but unhappily it would take both sides to work together to get that.

Juila is not a lier:

The statement 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' is perfectly true...

... which only leads us to speculate who is really leads this government!?

THE SKY IS FALLING!

think who released the topic
without revealing the numbers

julia thinks its so clever to keep the numbers secret
so we can name call numeric ignorance

then later say
we told you the numbers last time
ie john howards plan...using the same numbers
using the same plan

the same howard numbers keven julia..now tony grasp's with
he didnt make them numbers up

the global warming/cooling thing
ok lets believe it is true...and it really is changing
its being changed by greenhouse gasses..

*ALL OF EM
NOT JUST THE EASY ONE TO TAX

mining coal releases methane
but tony loves the miners..so wont score that point

farming creates nitrous oxide
so tony wont be playing that card neither

home composting generates ...*more methane that cattle
so the greenies wont be seeking a tax on that methane neither

how is this a debate?
be honest now....HOW?

there is only one villan here..
its all blamed on carbon..the scape goat that we all can get taxed on
[but some will make a proffit...

[guess who..it wont be you

yet we have carbon dioxide in our dayly bread
we have it in the sugery drinks rotting out our kids teeth
even our grog wine booze ferments..co2

but we will only vilify and tax
part of the REAL problem

cant you jokers see the joke

will we get jobs taxing volcanoes
or shutting down the sun

where is the spain JOBS
now the jobs done?

we are being conned
why cany you wake up?

there shall only be ..some causual jobs
putting up the windmill or solar cells
built in china or germany..

then they fail
[they only have a 20 year life]

and we begin all over again..
but made more polution because of lies
we have lies upon lies..only fools think it will work out 'fine'

so the great lies fail
the colluded..green evolution[experiment]..
that cost us the world...FAILS

then we all die
just because we believed

*the sky was falling

its about ...jobs for the boys
trading carbon-credits

greed is god

Well yes Julia did lie. I wonder if the PM meant it at the time - I expect she did but now with a sharing of power the situation has changed.

IMO Julia should have kept her word, regardless of the Greens position. If anything the Greens should be about better government, transparency and accountability. That is also part of the Greens platform, which is why they gained support as well as for issues of the environment and humanitarianism.

While I support the Greens, I do not support a Carbon Tax for various reasons.

But how is this PM any different from John Howard's 'never ever' GST. It seems we cannot trust our politicians from any side of politics.

I bet Tony Abbott will not remove the tax if he is elected next time - and he will also find some semantic gobblygook to justify it. That is the shame of modern politics and we let them get away with it.

Pelican,

The bottom line is that there is no difference between Julia's change of heart and John Howard's.

No doubt Shadow Minister will be quick to point out that Howard took his about face to an election.

However, "Never, ever GST" is fairly transparent in its meaning - the principle here is still the same.

Two pollies went back on their word. (surprise, surprise)

I think any politician that says never is being foolish.
To say so means you know the future.

From next July will it be possible under the constitution for the Prime
Minister to be a Senator ?
It seems that Prime Minister Brown is already running the country even
before his trip to Yarralumla.

Sometimes lefties make me sick. This constant bring up of Howard's no GST is an example.

Normally used to justify some Labor broken promise, the comparison is a lie in it self.

Howard was responding to a question, on the run, after a loss. In effect what he was saying is, "we know we need a GST, [just as Keating knew], but none of us will ever have the courage to try to implement one again. If you don't recognise this is a fact you Lie even to yourself.

Incredibly, Howard somehow found the courage to try again, & imposed that courage on a most frightened, & reluctant party, & won an election. Get over it The man has guts. He was also stupid enough to think he could do it again with working conditions, & lost.

It would be an idea if you lefties said thanks some time. Without his foresight, there would now be no public hospitals. It cost the companies I was running quite a lot of money to implement, but I could see it was needed to support the states.

It was typical of Labor thinking that Ruddy tried to get control of the states GST into commonwealth hands. They can't stand not controlling everything.

Belly, & others, please stop trying to justify some rotten thing, done by Labor PMs & others, by suggesting the other lot would do the same thing, & the right would approve. I have never heard a righty who is so biased as you lefties. They disaprove of their lot, when they think they are wrong, which is quite often I have found, just like Labor did when it still meant something.

The amazing thing is that the modern Labor hierarchy despise you useful idiots much more than the Libs do, & you don't even see it. If I weren't such a hard hearted bast4rd, I'd probably pity you.

Any statement made by a candidate for office has to be understood to be subject to alteration , in the circumstances which prevail after the election . In a democracy , no MP , even the Prime Minister , can pass legislation unless the majority in Parliament approve it . The word "promise " in the context of an election can be no more than a promise to try to obtain a legislative majority to do what is proposed to be done .

If candidates wish to be immune from the carping criticism which is now being made , they will have to qualify every statement by saying that it is subject to there being a legislative majority at the relevant time and providing that exceptional circumstances do not occur that require a change from what was proposed . If that course is followed , the critics will complain that the candidate is not being categorical enough .

Israel's prime minister (1963-1969), Levy Eshkol, is most known for his saying:

"Sure I promised, but did I promise to keep my promise?"

Hasbeen there is nothing 'rightie' or 'leftie' about lying. It happens on both sides. Regardless of political stance, lying is lying, Howard lied, now Julia lied. We keep bringing it up because it is hypocritical to imply their lies are okay and another's is not okay. Simple.

How is Howard's lie any more justifiable than Julia's. That is the problem with politics, people take a personal affront when their side of politics plays up and people call them on it.

We should all by calling them on it, regardless of where we sit on the ideological spectrum. I suspect on both sides of politics in Australia people are heartily fed up with bottom dwelling and sensationalist politics. The Coalition really needs to shape up as well and call the government on real travesties not every time a new policy is forwarded.

Opposition for the sake of it is not calling the government to account and little boys calling wolf too many times means the important stuff is missed. The Opposition needs to 'professionalise' (yes I made that word up) and become a truly relevant Opposition that really does call the government to account.

So far, Coaltion playground antics just makes it a mockery. Brandis and Abetz's performance in the Senate today was a good example, but Senator Evans (ALP) was not much better himself with rehashing the tired old game plays ad infinitum.

Hasbeen mate I would not be you if you are Australia's richest man.
I noted your self assessment, do not agree.
You appear more fixed and just a little bigoted but that comes from lack of understanding, education is wasted on some.
In the post above mine deep truth lives we are being lead by second class people on both sides.
Just maybe we are seeing something I truly fear, the birth of a schism a split from fair go mate to just hate the other side,, for being different.
Thankfully there are few like you.
And if I posted the very reverse of your post, come be honest it is a sign of manhood.
What you said about me say it was the other way around would you say the same.
Hasbeen you need to understand your fan club needs your attention.

They ALL do it.

Want proof? Here it is.

PM Howard, "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia".

Later that same day when Mr Howard was asked, "Have you left the door open for a GST?" he replied, "No, there's no way a GST will ever be a part of our policy". He was then asked, "Never ever?" and replied, "Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election".

PM Howard then brought in the GST.

The Coalition has no moral high ground when it comes to Prime Ministerial lying.

Welcome Joanme I hope you stay a long time.
In time you will come to understand, for a very few, truth has no meaning.
Not saying they lie.
Just that,like some on my side only the faults of the other side matter.
I know Gillard back flipped, but also that we had a mandate from 07 for an ETS.
I think of Rudd and her still AS GUTLESS for not going on with it.
But Joan silly as it sounds in an open forum, just a few here will never budge, an earth quake could not move them.
To understand the devisions being built by dysfunctional politics right now, this country is building future trouble on wrong directions and wrong leadership
I ask the real Liberals,those who remember their party's history, to re look at your founder, no mate of mine but in the words of Sir Robert Menzies you will find greatness compared with todays leader ship.
I claim no sainthood for my current or immediate past leadership just disappointment.

Joanne,

Howard after realising his mistake, went back to the people and campaigned with GST as a platform, knowing that it would lose him votes.

Juliar does not have the integrity to do so, and if she intended to introduce a price on carbon simply lied to stay in power.

Perhaps it is time for those inclined to feel disenfranchised by the AGW advocacy block, to claim our democratic voice?

The following article from Quadrant On-Line was posted Monday 28th February.

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

It also provided the following link to sign up for protest action against the proposed carbon tax and an opportunity to sign a petition.


mailto:thepeoplesrevolt@talkingclimate.ruralsoft.com.au

Time for action rather than grumbling on-line?

Why are we still even discussing this CO2 business ?

Has the IPCC rerun their computer models against the new Uppsala
fossil fuel data ?
They are taking a long time about it.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-support-drops-after-carbon-tax-deal-20110228-1bbmp.html

At least it looks as though the Australian public are punishing Juliar and the greens for their bait and switch deceit.

- Labor down 2 points
- Greens down 1 point
- Coalition up 2 points.

Nice own goal Juliar

Here's some examples of Coalition morality when it comes to promises, trust and integrity.

Prior to the election John Howard mentioned not one word about Work Choices, he knew if he did he would have lost the election. After this deceit, the Coalition introduced Work Choices with all it's anti worker right wing dogma, and did it with NO mandate from the voters.

John Howard's 2004 pre election commitment, "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?". Liberal party pre-election promise "we'll keep interest rates at record lows". What happened? Under the Coalition we had 15 rate rises.

The Coalition also lied to the Australian public with a solemn commitment about the GST, "Nor will it be Coalition policy at ANY time in the future". It was an out and out lie lie lie.

The Coalition lied about the children overboard incident. Lied, lied, lied.

The Coalition broke key election promises to protect certain iconic Tasmanian forests in 2004.

The list of broken Coalition commitments and backflips is endless.

As I said, the Coalition has no moral high ground when it comes to "lies, lies, lies".

As any reasonable person knows, ALL political parties lie and backflip.

Joanme,

Good points - "All political parties lie and backflip."

Mr Howard even categorised his promises as core and his lies as non-core....very creative, indeed.

so joanie
the excuse of ..he did it
..so she can do it

thats the new policy?

we are ruled by scummy spin docter facless hacks true to type
that us spin lies..

then get on with
the big business adgenda
according as ..those ..who run the 2 party plus one system..tell them to do..

they are all the same lowlife types
selling clever spin
or policy without the detail
when people look for the detail
the spin is they are making it up
[thats why we dont get facts]

asure it seems like we had a debate
but it was only name-calling...
[one up man ..ship ..ppt]

lets cut through the cccccrr-rap
the rudd plan..WAS THE HOWHARD PLAN
is the julia plan

thats the end plan man

first we put a fake floor price under carbon

to set the market minimum
then give it to the big money men
who then trade it up ..from the floor price

taxing in only one 'greenhouse gas'
ignoring the others MUCH WORSE

while continueing ..with the 12 billion subsidies
we currently* give ..to the poluters

just watch
who gets these bailouts
the squeaky wheel ..gets the cash

those with the most affective lobby win
and the poor or the young or the old..they simply dont count

no media to protect them
no lobby to protect them

stuff them..
and the two party system
that is further scamming and taxing them

Well, no use complaining "All political parties lie and backflip" - that's what they exist for, that's part of their job-description.

The solution is simple: take away their power so they cannot do any harm in the real world, then they may sit in Canberra and lie and lie and lie to each other all day and all night.

Also in order to minimize the damage, the best Prime-Minister candidate would be someone who is in a coma that lies in hospital in a persistent vegetative state.

Poirot >>No doubt Shadow Minister will be quick to point out that Howard took his about face to an election.

And there is the difference! No lies, just the plain open facts.

Pelican >>How is Howard's lie any more justifiable than Julia's

Because he took it to the people as a huge part of his election campaign. That's how!

Oh, golly gosh, rehctub - you're so right!

"Never, ever" actually means "I've changed my mind, how about it, folks?"

How honest can you get?

Work Choices, children overboard, the (last ditch) Haneef Affair - and, of course, his stoush with Peter Costello over the issue of leadership, demonstrate just how "honest" Mr Howard was.

The reality is that they're all a bunch of tossers who dance to a corporate tune - and at the moment they're a particularly mediocre bunch at that.

rehctub
Putting an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence does not make it any more accurate.

Howard did not take it to the election - he took the promise that there would never ever be a GST and said GST would never be a part of Coalition policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

Howard also said he would never sell off Telstra. Howard also said he did not receive advice that asylum seekers were not throwing their children Overboard. Those that supported him in the lie became senior public servants some in the area of national security.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1179011.htm

There is nothing wrong with supporting a 'team' but if they get it wrong or worse, outright lie, why are you so willing to forgive one but not the other. It is hypocrtical.

This is why politicians of all stripes get away with it, because the people let them. It is nothing more than team sports and whose team wins or loses. Fair play has gone out the window.

Perhaps Gillard didn't lie. Perhaps she make a promise without a guarantee that she could keep it. Foolish whichever way you look at it, but not necessarily dishonest. As far as any of us are aware, at the time she made the statement she believed it to be true. Unfortunately, she couldn't guarantee its veracity. She should have known better than to make the statement in the first place - that's for sure.

By the way, in my opinion it is a rather "below the belt" sort of shot to take a dig at someone because of his/her name. It kind of weakens your argument when you have to stoop to name-calling (Juliar?) in order to cement your case. That's just my opinion, though.

Pelican no doubt you are well aware your thoughts and ideas will not penetrate here.
I have learned that lesson.
In the strangest way I have to say it keeps me from posting as much as I usually do in some threads.
A form of self Censor ship?
If she lied, if she knew a hung Parliament was coming.
IF and if again, nothing will change.
Yesterday Abbott told his team not to be side tracked by individuals opinions on climate change.
He warned them to concentrate on Labor,hold their personal opinions back.
Who then is the most dishonest?
Both are the wrong people for the jobs they hold,but ABBOTT IS A DANGER TO US ALL.
Will not return to this thread true debate is not the intention here, that is sad we exist to swap ideas but not in some threads

In the real world with 3 years between elections, circumstances change, and that promises that were made during an election campaign might well a few years later turn out not to be feasible.

The question is whether the promise was pivotal in the campaign, and how much circumstances have changed.

For example, a promise to hire 1000 more police officers, but only hiring 500 when the job market tightens is technically a broken promise, but an effort was made, but other circumstances intervened.

This is what Howard meant by core and non core promises. It simply reflects reality.

Julia Gillard made a solemn promise to the Australian people, and a couple of weeks later indicated that she intended to break it where the only circumstances that changed were political convenience, and implement a tax that would both have a serious impact on everyone's cost of living, with almost no benefit to the climate.

Without a moment's thought she broke a core promise that got her elected and perpetrated one of the most audacious acts of treachery on the people of Australia.

Pelican >>Howard did not take it to the election

Tell me you're kidding!

In any case I doubt she will get this one through, unless of cause our independents are not 'true independence', as I suspect.

I call on anyone to simply do the math of 'benefits V costs' and make your own judgement.

Benefits, possible 5% reduction of OUR EMISSIONS only, resulting in a possible one 20Th of 1 percent of the worlds emissions.

Costs, possible job losses through under investment in the mining sector and the potential to cripple many among us who are already on the brink of financial ruin.

This impost will be charged to the consumer in one form or another. To think otherwise is naive.

Now back to the tax.

Why rush it, two years is going to have very little if any effect on emissions so, would it not be wiser for her to take this to the next election, just as JH took the GST, another 'broken promise' to the election.

I say, if anyone in public office has to break a promise, and let's face it, it does happen, then let the people decide, not the government, as in this case the government did lie to the people about the tax.

Bring on the next election.

No not kidding rehctub.

The question we all need to ask is do we just accept lying is part of politics or do we continue to call politicians to account?

The political landscape in Australia is not going to make any headway if we only see the bad in the opposing team but fail to bring to account those in 'our' own team (for lack of a better word).

I suspect Julia may have meant the 'promise' at the time but with a hung parliament felt strongarmed by the Greens. No excuse though, she should stand up to the Greens and Independents on those issues where there is a pre-existing election guarantee. Otherwise some of the benefits of a more consultative government will be lost.

It is infinitely better though than when Mr Howard won control of the Parliament in both houses and we got no scrutiny whatsoever and were at the mercy of the business unions and the result was WorkChoices.

I see what you mean Belly, head in the sand syndrome.

Yes pelican, and our world (Australia) was a much better place back then.

Small, medium and large business has little confidence any more.

Now medium and small business feeds off big business, but when big business pulls its head in, due to confusion and uncertainty, things go pear shaped.

Your lot are doing a damned fine job of stalling things here with the uncertainty they are creating out there, aren't they.

Let's just hope there is somethig left to salvage after they are finnished playing with our futures.

who can claim to be suprised when govt lies
when media spin asks us the question is julia too far left
or is john howard a coward...to get him to..bomb bomb iraq or get into the alphghanes

yesterday we heard the black swan using media numbers in his spin
[to wit 7000 green jobs] had he read the full brief he would KNOW it is based on a CARBON PRICE OF $46 bucks

as two faced tony has been quoting MUCH LOWER NUMBERS
se the spin...see the tail isnt waging the dog..[the greens have belled the cat]

they arnt BEHIND
they lead...[like a bull]..
labour has a ring through its nose
or the GREENS are the nose..[where the nose goes the labdog follows]

who knows what else is on the nose?
Davis Arrest Throws US Undercover
Campaign in Pakistan into Disarray


As I reported earlier, both Pakistani and Indian news organizations are claiming, based upon intelligence sources, that Davis was involved in not just intelligence work,

*but in orchestrating terrorist activity by both the Pakistani Taliban and the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which has been linked to both the assassination of Benezir Bhutto and the capture and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Multiple calls to members of both groups were found by police on some of the cell phones found on Davis and in his car when he was arrested in Lahore.
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/487
Webmaster's Commentary:
No wonder the CIA is desperate to get this guy back!

Timeline Of Insider Trading Case Against Former Goldman Sachs Director - BLATANT FRAUD
By: Pitchfork

Wait until you read these details
http://dailybail.com/home/rajat-gupta-timeline-of-insider-trading-case-against-former.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167865.html
http://dailybail.com/home/us-owes-30-more-to-china-than-previously-thought.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/02/constitution-version-20.html
http://www.habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1097:consumer-reports-knocks-government-motors-chevy-volt-in-review&catid=47:latest-news&Itemid=65

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-03-01.asp

http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ohio-senate-bill-5-designed-to

but its all too hard right
you cant change nothing
thats why govt works..[for them]

not you

That is where we are different rehctub. I don't have a "lot" - that is your mindset, not mine and the very problem I am writing about above.

Hold ALL politicians to account not just the team you usually bat for.

I have criticised Labor policy a number of times on this forum and even disagree with the Greens on a Carbon Tax (mainly because it won't work in reducing emissions, it is hypocrtical when we are exporting loads of carbon emitting coal and importing goods/food we can produce here, and will put Australia at a disadvantage).

I don't think you have ever criticised anything the Coalition has done - you just let them get away with it.

We were better off when I was a kid in the 70s. Maybe we did not have all the luxuries we have now but we owned our houses earlier, rents were affordable, the level of personal debt was low, small business were looked after, there was no GST, and the public owned all-important utilities, communications, a bank and an airline. It wasn't perfect but it was something to build upon. Instead of building on this 'imperfect' social democracy later governments (both ALP and Coalition) set out to destroy those very foundations.

Pelican>>That is where we are different rehctub. I don't have a "lot" - that is your mindset, not mine and the very problem I am writing about above.

>>Hold ALL politicians to account not just the team you usually bat for.

I do!

>>I don't think you have ever criticised anything the Coalition has done - you just let them get away with it.

How about, the baby bonus, someone else's war, the sale of Telstra. I have always opposed these.

>>rents were affordable,

Well actually, they were higher, as a percentage of the value of the property.

In my home town, a house was worth about $7,000 in the early 70's and rented for about $15 a week.

That same home today is worth $350K and should therefore rent for $740 per week, yet rents for $350. Plus, today's landlord has more regulations to adhere to and more bills than you can poke a stick at, no to mention next to no rights, compared to the tenant.

>>the level of personal debt was low,

Governments did not cause this, society did by wanting what they couldn't afford, you know, interest free.

There was also the introduction of the 'non bank' institutions, who placed huge strains on banks with their lack luster lending policies. Eventually, the banks had to cave in and follow suit.

Prior to this, no one could borrow beyond their means. You know, 'no cash, no splash!

Where the governments failed was in allowing it to fester into what it is today.

It's our version of the US sub prime mortgage. Difference is, over there one can simply walk away.

>>Instead of building on this 'imperfect' social democracy later governments ...

Simply answer. To many snouts in the trough.

You see, we now have two, maybe three generations who think it's their given right to have children and expect someone else to pay for them, even if they blow their own limited funds on grog, cigs and pokies.

Combine this with a diminishing tax revenue and the end result is we are heading south.

its only too easy to tax carbon

but the other ozone depeting gasses
are the real problem[if there even is a problem]

[they are..*by affect..
hundreds of times worse

thus they on a comparison graph..*look small
[in the spin of numbers]

but ...by*affect
are much ..MUCH LARGER

facter in the methane
from 40,000 leakey coal-seam gaswells
in qld alone

the extra methane
as coal mining continue's.. their increase

the index
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

notes nitrouse oxide..as increasing
as well as the..'other'..far WORSE gasses

BLAMING taxing.. *one gas
cant rebut ...*all of them

but lets rebut
their LIE

''Of the five long-lived greenhouse gases
that contribute 96% to radiative climate forcing,
[by QUANTITY..not affect]
CO2 and N2O are the only*ones...LOL
that continue to increase...at a regular rate.""

the buzz word..96%
[quantity not quality]!

from their own graph
cfc11 has near doubled
cfc12 0.092 to 0.170
n20 0.099 to 0.173
ch4 0.410 to 0.502

more spin quote

""Radiative forcing from CH4 increased from 2007 to 2009 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006.

the radiative forcing of the long-lived,well-mixed greenhouse gases increased 27.5% from 1990 to 2009 (~0.60 watts m-2),

''CO2 has accounted for nearly 80% of this""..[27 percent]..""increase''[by ammount not affect]

BUT THE OTHER
ARE all..RISING TOO

''''The five major greenhouse gases
account for..*about 96%
of the direct radiative*forcing'"

buzzwords?

The remaining 4% is contributed
by the 15 minor halogenated gases.

these have MORE than TRIPPLED
0.031 to 0.103

so it all depends
on who is spinning it

c02 sure AINT NO HOCKEY STICK

""Except for the HFCs and SF6,which do not contain chlorine or bromine,these gases are also *ozone-depleting gases

radiative forcing for the major gases and a set of 15 minor long-lived halogenated gases(CFC-113,CCl4,CH3CCl3,HCFCs 22,141b and 142b, HFCs 134a,152a,23,143a,and 125,SF6,and halons 1211,1301 and 2402).""

tax these
to stop the spin

remember when..we were told the ozone hole
was going to create warming
and we got cooling...LOL

The NOAA..[Annual Greenhouse Gas Index(AGGI),
is still run..*by science types..
that are good ..at SPIN

what govt..ever saw
a new tax..it didnt LOVE?

what special intrest
dont love..*easy GOVT_CASH?

Well I agree with you last comments rehctub. Maybe we agree on more than we disagree. :)

rehctub,

"...society did this by wanting what they couldn't afford...."

Well, yes....this is what the push for never-ending growth has achieved - and it is encouraged almost from the cradle to the grave....not good for a balanced life.

I'm with Pelican....I agree with the points in your last post.

Question. 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition.

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.
We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!
Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.

Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Facts show even high-levels-of CO2 can make no impact on heating the atmosphere.
1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.
• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the-same-temperature.
• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin,its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The-Sun-renews-warmth-every-day.
Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling.

A Carbon Tax
Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
Gregg D Thompson
Climate Researcher
Astronomer
Environmentalist
Author of two science books
Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
Author of science magazine articles
Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
Nature photographer
Has a great interest in most scienc

And one simple volcano eruption omits more CO2 that the entire population does in two years, and that's in just two weeks.

I say we should work on carbon storage, not carbon reduction as this has the potential to cripple us financially.

Things like building houses with much more timber, perhaps storing carbon in building blocks, tiles and concrete.

I am not a scientist, but there must be a way. Who knows, it may even provide jobs.

Who said there will be a carbon tax, to put a price on carbon is not a tax. No one knows what the structure of the carbon pricing will be. It is yet to be worked out. So no one knows what you are on about. When policy has been sorted out, you will have something to talk about. Until then it is your imagination running riot.

Interesting reading all these posts, and finally coming on to oneundergod's last post concluding that as interesting diverging views may be, it is probable that every contributor is motivated by desire of achieving a better management of this country, though hitherto achieved by our two party system and remarkable by western values.

It’s the system as now evolved that is of concern.

When lies are justified or not even seen for what they are, when influence of wealth prevails, when materialism dominates etc. and we justify it according to the colour of our ties, consciously or unconsciously, we are on a slippery slope.

When "opponents" like pelican and rehctub see that they are opponents with similar objectives, perhaps the focus will return to demanding honesty and deliverance of promises are rigorously subjected to transparency, exposure and severe punishment of all failing to behave honourably as the Honourable Member for each and every electorate, as representatives of the people, not their particular party.

Philo sets me the task of having to look deeper into his claimed details (at least one of which I know to be incorrect) but most of which challenge me to ensure, as one dedicated to the scientific method must, that I have not been misinformed or uninformed in important aspects of the same issue as he argues.

In the meantime, why not look to the benefits of renewable energy and reduction of our demands upon mother earth in every possible area, instead of wasting our own energy arguing pro's and cons in a dividing partisan or self gratifying manner?

A true social democracy embracing all it's people as human beings entitled to equality under the law, education, health, nutrition, shelter, security and compassion for those falling victim to it, is possible in an enlightened society such as Australia, lagging behind others sufficiently to give time to avoid the pitfalls which have or are engulfing them.

May intellect prevail over misplaced loyalty and allegiances. Perhaps for it to do so, it needs to move cohesively against ignorance and sensationalistic journalism as now prevails.

Teddy bear. Absolutely correct. There has got to be an element of truth, not verbal make believe. It is a debate with no substance at all
Premature and dishonest.

The Earth's poison problems lie much more in sulfur dioxides, acids and salts than with Co2.

a597,

Any levy, impost, etc where revenue goes to state coffers is a tax by the very definition of the word irrespective of where it is spent.

Whine Swan's ridiculous claim that it is not a tax because it is spent on households is ridiculous. This means that GST, income tax etc are not "really taxes"

As for the claim that only the big polluters are paying, that really is absurd considering that the biggest polluters are the electricity generators who simply pass their costs on to households, businesses etc.

Well said Teddy Bear. You have perfeclty summarised the political environment and the feelings and objectives of many people.

Philo states isolated facts to try and shore up his view that there is no man-made global warming. He quotes facts out of context, for example:
'Mars is cold and its atmosphere is mostly CO2' but fails to mention that it has very little atmosphere (1% of Earth's pressure) and is much further from the sun.
'Venus has a lot of CO2 but its temerature is stable' - fails to mention it's also very hot (467 deg C), also has a lot of sulphuric acid, a cooling gas and is closer the sun (so what does all of that prove?)
'Water vapour has a much greater heating effect than CO2 ad there's more of it' - fails to mention that it returns to the ocean as rain in days where CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years

We should all be wary of facts stated out of context. They can be as dangerous as lies, particularly when spouted by unqualified climate deniers. These people purport to know more than the 97% of peer reviewed scientists who assure us that man made global warming is fact.
Why are the deniers not prepared to trust the full analysis of the scientific establishment on climate change but are prepared to believe those isolated scientific facts that suit them?

OK Shadow Minister a carbon price is a tax; it is a tax reform, in much the same way as your party's GST was. As you well know and do not say, tax reforms are reallocations of how and where tax is levied, they are not simply 'great big new taxes'. There are scores of taxes under various names from income tax, GST to stamp duties and various levies; most of us know that they all are part of the present tax system. Those who aren't clear on this can brush up by checking Wikipedia of the Treasury website.

Your party's current alternative to a carbon price / tax / trading scheme (all amount to the same thing done in different ways) is for the taxpayer to pay industry to reduce their emissions, apparently without making us pay more (i.e. new) tax. Sounds like magic to me. When are you going to spell out how you propose to do this? No-one, economists included, believes it can be done. Perhaps you should admit that you along wth big resource industries who pay next to nothing (5-6c/ kWh) for their energy, want to do nothing. Paying about 3c more under a carbon tax, might reduce their huge profits, at least 50% of which go to rich tycoons overseas.

When are you going to show the electorate how you propose to reduce emissions without costing the taxpayer? Perhaps it would be better to stop pretenting and admit that you like Philo are a global warming denier?

1,000 years ago Greenland was as the name suggests, a Green Land of grasses and trees. Wonder - Why? Because the Earth was warmer then and there was less Ice which allowed those from the North to sail to its shores!

I suggest we cap the energy of volcanoes and we might have an answer to Global warming, our energy generation and reduction of sulfur dioxide entering the atmosphere.

I am not denying Global warming just that the highrst % of it is not caused by humans, and we cannot control it.

We are in agreement, Philo and others, that the world has warmed and cooled for many reasons. I suspect that the 97% of climate scientists may be aware of that too but they say this latest 'blip' of 1 deg and rising to 2, 3 , 4, 5 degrees if unchecked is the result of man made greenhouse gas emissions (collectively referred to as CO2e).

I don't need them to tell me that the consequences of 2 plus deg. warming are very unpleasant and costly indeed. I have experienced more than 50 summers and the last two have been the worst; around Perth they were more than 2 deg. warmer (max and min) than the average of about 100 years of records. As a result of these record hot years the west coast and the East coast had extremes of weather as predicted by the climate science. Driest seasons on record followed (when coupled with the La Nina weather cycle) by floods and tornadoes like the small one that ripped out 2 foot thick trees and detroyed my neighbour's roof. And this is nothing to what we are in for when it really starts to warm up.

If you doubt the link between CO2 and warming check out the 'hockey stick' graphs by Mann and other mainstream climate scientists.

Was Greenland really a green land? I had always been taught that it was a marketing con following the disastrous response to Erik the Red's colonial plans in Iceland.

Roses1,

The subtle difference with the GST is that when imposing the tax, Howard gave an equivalent amount of rebate on other taxes. The point was to change the method of collecting tax not increasing it.

With the carbon tax, this is not replacing other taxes, it simply increases the tax load. While promising subsidies to low income earners, it does not reduce the tax load for the majority of people, nor does it replace the jobs lost in the steel and aluminium industry to China.

Roses1,
I suppose your hot summers have been offset by the coldest winters in 60 years in the Northern hemisphere. My wife is English and her 66 year old sister still lives in England and she sent us pictures of Ice around her home and conditions she has never before witnessed. Our friends in the USA were locked in for weeks with huge falls of snow. Has anynoe factored in the effect the volcanos in Indonesia and Iceland have caused to global warming?

No! It is all an innacurate science of impressions just like your impressions of the heat in Perth.

Shadow Minister

A carbon price is not 'subtly' different to the GST in terms of rebates/ offsets by reducing other taxes. These can be provided in exactly the same way, as has been stated will be done by the Government for low and middle income earners.

With regards effects on industry and the economy, here is a contribution to some informed debate.

As one who has professionally assessed energy and emissions of dozens of companies, I can say that:
- energy comprises around 1% of energy costs of most manufacturing and retail industries.
- Light industry and and retail businesses purchase electricity at tariffs of around 18c per unit. A $25 carbon price would only increase these by less than 3c or 15% and fuel price by less than 6c or 5%.
- The businesses I audited could easily reduce energy use by 20% for transport fuels and 10% for electricity by implementing low or no cost efficiencies (<12 month payback time)
- These companies can pay a carbon price, implement efficiences and not increase their energy bills, which is precisely what the carbon price is intended to do. Reductions in company tax is likely to more than offset any costs that a minority may incur.

The smelting and petroleum industries you mentioned are a special case as they have high energy use(around 20% of their costs or more in case of aluminum smelting). They contribute a huge portion (about 40%) of Australia's energy related emissions, are a relatively small part of the ecomomy and have great potential to reduce these emissions if paying a carbon price

roses said..
"“97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus,

This number..will prove a new embarrassment
to the pundits and press who use it.

The number stems..from a 2008 master’s thesis..by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois,under the guidance of Peter Doran,an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences.

The two researchers obtained their results
by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists.

The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers

in the end,they chose to highlight the views
of a subgroup of just 77 scientists,

75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.

The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography,oceanography,engineering,paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed..more worthy of being included in the consensus.

The two researchers also decided..scientific accomplishment should not be a factor..in who could answer..those surveyed were determined by their place of employment..(an academic or a governmental institution).

Neither was academic qualification a factor
about 1,000..of those surveyed did not have a PhD,
some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation..among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey..that would take less than two minutes to complete,and would be done online,saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply.

Nevertheless,most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response..just 3,146, or 30.7%.. answered the two key questions on the survey:

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels,..do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen,fallen,or remained relatively constant?

2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions posed to the Earth scientists
were actually non-questions.

From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years,I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s,

and almost none..who think humans haven’t contributed
in some way to the recent warming..

quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions,..
clearly the OTHER greenhouse gasses have THEIR guilt..

just dont be claiming any 97% concen-SUSS
its a lie

Roses1

"A carbon price is not 'subtly' different to the GST in terms of rebates/ offsets by reducing other taxes. These can be provided in exactly the same way, as has been stated will be done by the Government for low and middle income earners."

It could but, it should be, but it's not!

There are no taxes reduced, what the government is planning is a cash hand out to low income earners, and businesses.

Tax and spend, the old Labor mantra.

The smelting industry only contributes a few percent to Australian emissions, but employs thousands. When the supply of steel and Aluminium moves overseas the net emissions will not change, and the only impact will be on Australian families.

Shadow Minister,
Good post SM, so we encourage the mining of Coal and Steel etc but do not process it here ourselves clearing our conscience of polluting the Planet. The Government has not got the guts to close down mining of Coal and Steel even though the Greens would love this. The Greens are not about development otherwise they would have a programme to green the desert, as has happened in Israel.