http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-shock-now-its-40-tonne-20110516-1epxo.html?from=smh_ft

Only at or above $40/t does anything other than coal based generation become commercially viable. This means that until this threshold is reached, there is no incentive to change, and that a carbon tax will not change reduce emissions other than close Australian manufacturing.

Below this point, the only viable gas fired base load or renewables will require government subsidy.

The carbon tax subsidies to households and businesses will simply be a churn of money that is bad economics.

as tony said
THATS ONLY THE STARTING POINT...!

from then its 5 %..plus each year

then to the money changers
who will buy and sell ther LIMITED carbon credits
hoard them..

till we pay..through the nose
to buy it at it their..SPECULATED market price

why ya thibnk turncoat/bull
wants the new tradeable comm-odity for?

they want one we MUST BUY
that reduces its cap every year

AND WONT CHANGE A THING for 1000 years

how else is wayne going into 'surplus'
12 billion carbon fraud credits
[at %2o ton]

or just under...$30 billion
hey what you think

the wbankers see huge bonus
the grenies se their industies getting bail;outs[read govt cash]

the petolium subsidy to big coal/gas..[12 billion]
hey we got $50 billion..[except the mates get to keep their 12x billion subsidy

just as we will retain
the EVER INCREASING TAX..ON BREATHING

and the miners making methane
and farmers making nitrouse oxide
get more petro carbon subsidies....business as use-you-all

The introduction of a carbon tax has one purpose... generate the funds to reduce the deficit. Then they will claim they have achieved two goals. Swann is the idiot who thinks a set-top box costs $350. He's totally out of touch. How can we trust any figures the Labour party produces when they have proven they can't even manage a roof insulation program. If they are so confident this is a good idea and if they still believe in democracy (which I doubt they do) then put this to the people to vote on.

Brilliant OUG.

Specially loved the Use-you-all. How do you constantly come up with the clever word play?

"THE Gillard Government is full of hot air when it comes to slashing greenhouse gases - just two of 20 Cabinet ministers have fuel-efficient hybrid cars."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/gillard-government-opts-for-gas-guzzling-vehicles/story-e6frf7jo-1226057837660

Yet another case of "Do what I say not what I do" by Juliar.

The Shadow said;
The carbon tax subsidies to households and businesses will simply be a
churn of money that is bad economics.

Not really, think of all those public service money shufflers that will
find "useful" employment !

It could all fall apart if on 2nd August the US doesn't lift their
borrowing limit. It might also fall apart if they do,
BTW they got it back to the 2nd August by creative accounting.
They did not pay into the employee retirement fund, put off to August.

I think that where Wayne Swanne has been learning his trade.

He's on the piss Houellebecq. (lol)

The Labor Party are driven by ideology that has no basis in logic.They are totally dysfunctional and irrational.This means that at least 48% of our population have the same illogical bent.

Most humans on this planet in my opinion are terminally stupid.I do not know what the solution is.I'm aggedon the feeling that our dysfunctionality will be the solution to our self imposed agony.

a dreadful event is about to invade this thread.
REALITY!
British plans to introduce a carbon cost much higher even than this thread threatens.
Abbott's true intention can no longer be ignored.
Yes Labors plan will cost industry.
BUT Abbott's 30 billion big spend, is to be a big new tax.
Not retrieved from emitters, but us Australian tax payers.
And it will cost us to prop up polluting industry's.
Socialism in reverse.

belly/quote..""a dreadful event is about to invade this thread.
REALITY!""

good we finally find out the rerality?

ok whats the carbon price?
and what is the target?
who is egsempt?

and just egsactly who are the one thousand..[lol]
collecting our money to give to bwankers and dole bludgers?

""British plans to introduce a carbon cost
much higher even than this thread threatens.""

no mate as i read it
they are lowering their limit
[might even be a proposal to lower their limit]

thing is they can do this..BECAUSE
..they get their power from france
and their steel industry is egzempt

[this didnt stop one steel industry from closing down its mill
sacking 800 workers..and using carbon credits..to build a new one in china..[aint carbon credits neat]

""Abbott's true intention can no longer be ignored.""
yeah get rid of nbn..get rid of tax on carbon
[and sack every unionist]

""Yes Labors plan will cost industry.""

..put lights arround that comment...

""BUT Abbott's 30 billion big spend,
is to be a big new tax.""

mate wether its guiltyhard or swannie river
or jonny howhard..or joe too cockey..
mate they plan to tax us to death

THE LOT OF EM
in the end user pays
only juliars...say..only 1000 'others'..will pay

""Not retrieved from emitters,
but us Australian tax payers.""

mate you consume..
YOUR EMMITING..YOU PAY
in the end the 'emmiters'..collect the tax from US..!

""And it will cost us
to prop up polluting industry's.
Socialism in reverse.""

yep i agree
carbon trading will speculate its price
with ya supper...[bonus to the bankers]..

and it will be broke
before your/membership collects it
the big bust is comming...

it began with us propping up
the marketeers with OUR..complusory supper
it will end with our carbon CREDITS..propping up
the resource..trading bubble..

as the money changers seek
a safe place..for their booty

Belly,

$bn spend. Where did you get this figure, or did you just make it up?

How about Labor's $50bn big spend on the NBN?

OUG come! you know I do not dislike you, but show some respect, for your self.
You have shown you can use a spell check,some posts are perfect.
If I can try surely you can.
Shadow Minister, you put costs out here that are even bigger than your party's, truly.
Do you doubt the 30 billion?
Do you not see it claimed even in conservative press.
Did you see Turnbull last night,statesman like.
Do not slander him, he will soon be your leader.
Are you challenging the FACT Abbott's plan is funded by tax payers,do you denie it is said to cost average tax payers over $700 a year.
True stuff say it is not true Abbott's spending cash he has not got.

Dear Belly,

Some people do have selective memories it seems. The Coalition's so called "Direct Action" scheme has a $30 billion budget black hole.
This means the Coalition would need to spend additional tax payer dollars to purchase 75% of the required abatement from overseas at a cost of over $20 billion and they want us to foot this bill.

Reminds me of a Monty Pythom film where the Island is sinking but the king's convinced "she'll be right," and people in the boats are screaming come join us we can save you but the king insists - no we're not sinking - we'll plant trees and we'll be right!

Malcolm Turnbull was excellent on Lateline last night - I loved what he had to say about NBN and also about the ETS. Too bad he's not the
party leader. He should be!

Belly & Shadow, it doesn't really matter.
We cannot afford the costs that are coming our way and in the end we
will not have the cash to pay these bills no matter how they are levied.
It will get very much worse as soon as China's economy takes a slow down.
A lot of commentary seems to be pointing to 2013 as when China's brakes come on.
No one is certain of course but exponential arithmetic says it will happen fairly soon

Belly,

Yes I deny the policy will cost $30bn. That was the figure put out by the Labor government.

As I have said previously, in the long term, there probably will be a price on carbon, i.e. when our major partners adopt one. Until then the direct action is far less damaging to the wallets of the tax payers than the carbon tax. Which is what Turnbull was saying.

sbr108,

"The introduction of a carbon tax has one purpose... generate the funds to reduce the deficit."

No it doesn't.
When our major trading partners introduce their own schemes and we don't then it's likely we will suffer trade or economic sanctions to pull us into line. Then there will be a far more expensive catch-up required to cut our emissions even faster in order to comply with international demands.
Do you really think that the rest of the world will just look the other way when the time comes?

"Swann is the idiot who thinks a set-top box costs $350. He's totally out of touch. "

No he isn't. It's the maximum subsidised amount and includes aerial installation where necessary as well as ongoing support. It's the same scheme that's been underway for the last 18 months and as insisted on by Nick Minchin and the Liberal Party.

Pay attention.

You're the one who's out of touch.

That claim wobbles was so uninformed I did not bother rebutting it.
Now some truth England is to price carbon MUCH HIGHER than Australia.
Quantas has been fined by the EU, for coming from a country that has no ETS.
All true.
Abbott would in power not go ahead with his current policy on this AND OTHER MATTERS.
He how ever nearly cracked yesterday, his demeanor at the food products plant nearly uncovered him,questions on other subjects.
I have seen SM launch a dozen threads,more,charging the ALP with ridiculous prices on ever issue.
He knows as we all do,Abbott has committed to take from tax payers not emitters, a sum I truly believe is 30 billion dollars.
I admit my mistakes take on my home side but SM is not capable of doing either.
PS
Evidence election promises are broken by both sides[ always wrong]Barry is introducing retrospective legislation in NSW, HOW unliberal!

Dear Belly,

Check this out:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/16/why-abbotts-budget-economic-twaddle

As one voter commented - "We should expose these type of people and the danger they pose to our nation."

Malcolm Turnbull is doing a pretty good job of it himself though - at long last. I was wondering how long it would take for a prominent Liberal like him to speak out with the truth - rather than being forced to tow the party line. Onya Malcolm - knew you had it in you!

There is no point in using the UK as an example of carbon charging.
It is much easier for them to reduce carbon by say 20% or whatever the
latest figure is because such a large percentage of their energy comes
from nuclear power stations.
Therefore the change effect on their economy is much less than it is
here in Aus.
We will be lucky if we get away with less than $30 billion anyway.
If oil prices rise as expected we will be flat out paying for that let
alone our carbon prices and levies imposed by other countries.
At present we are paying around $25 billion a year to import oil
products which is expected to rise to about $40 billion as our own
production continues its decline.
That cost alone will be more than the total NBN cost EVERY YEAR !

And then China will decline !

Belly,

Your comment "I have seen SM launch a dozen threads,more,charging the ALP with ridiculous prices on ever issue." is a deliberate lie.

Please provide some examples.

The $30bn is based on Labor's idiotic green policies and blown out costing projected onto their estimate of what needs to be built in the next decade. A complete joke.

Labor's carbon tax will take $11bn every year out of tax payers pockets.

I can see no point in continuing, you avoid this truth Abbott's plan is direct funding from our tax .
While granting big business cash pay as you earn tax payers fund it.
30 billion is the cost, Labor will help the worse off Abbott will penalize them more.
And the loss of mining tax under Abbott will hurt this country more.
While he funds middle to high income earners paid leave to have children.
LIBERALISM? doubt it bloke if Labor did that you would explode.

Dear Belly,

Here's what Malcolm Turnbull actually said about the Libs "Direct Action Scheme," :

"Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale, and there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for this political appeal. In short, having the government pay for emissions abatement,as opposed to the polluting industries themselves is a
slippery slope which can only result in higher taxes and more costly and less effective abatement of emissions. I say this as a member and former leader of a political party whose core values are a commitment to free markets and free enterprise."

It is in the big polluters best interest if a pollution fine is not employed to make them pay and change their pollution pumping technologies. The logic of Tony Abott is that the big energy produciung companies if taxed will threaten and punish the people of Australia with higher prices. His argument is now let us not tax these people, despite their behaviour and let the polluters continue polluting our air and water like they've been doing for (how many?) years. Tony Abbott has said mining companies shouldn't have to pay tax, he's said workers rights are negotiable and now he says he won't get polluters to reduce emissions. Due hard liberal supporters will continue to peddle the strong Abbott line. What terrifies me is that Abbott could become PM, on the back of tea-party types, shock jocks, and US type hysteria. Question time is now a complete farce. I do hope that the strong debate around climate change continues. The Liberal mentalities need to be laid bare for all to see. May they continue to rabbit on - people are not stupid.

Bellie

I see you completely failed to provide any link to false figures I provided.

Lexi,

I see that you dredged up a statement from more than a year ago, just after a disgruntled MT got dumped for supporting the ETS.

Lexi you post best describes the truth in this matter.
SM no need to miss spell in feeble attempts to get at me.
Turnbull is the future of your party.
Any keen observer of politics can see Abbott has something up his sleeve.
Seems intent on using some method to bring on an election.
I am sure this is his plan, just as sure Gillard is not the person to take Labor forward.
But as recent polling shows, and a book soon to be published, only Tony Abbott stopped you winning the last election.
He and only he, could get Gillard over the line.
No joy, nothing put pain, but only the fact fear of further change,public reaction to it, and Abbott, props Julia up.
This much is true, Abbott is too big a risk for Conservatives, his dumping alone can let them get rid of child like policy's that insult Liberalism.
I truly think ,only dumping Gillard and new leadership, free to dump for a time some of her failures can help the ALP.

Shadow Minister,

It's not going to work old chap. Everyone (except you apparently) knows of Turnbull's stance on the subject. Simply Google "Turbull blows the whistle on direct action," and see for yourself. Even your favourite newspaper, The Australian, backs this up - on Jack the Insider's blog.

As for accusing Belly of not supplying you with statistics - for someone who claims to have post-graduate qualifications - the figures are there for you to find. Google them yourself - but first remove the blinkers so you'll be able to see them. Hard to do while you continue to wear them.

Lexi,

The information does't exist. They are the fictitious "ridiculous prices" that I have included in "numerous threads" that Belly lied about.

Belly,

It looks as though Rudd will be your next leader, as I agree Gillard is hopeless.

thought about it but not worth the effort leave you to it SM.

SM,

I agree - there's much that "doesn't exist" within the Liberal Party.
Glad to see that you've finally removed those blinkers of yours.
See you on another thread.

OUG doesn't need alcohol to get views across Thinker2.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/warning-of-power-bills-to-double-within-six-years-20110522-1eym0.html

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queenslanders-want-early-election-to-vote-out-julia-gillard-over-carbon-tax/story-e6freoof-1226060290154

Estimates by an electricity retailer are that the carbon tax will double electricity prices in the next six years, and lead to very little additional investment in alternative technologies.

Also 2/3rds of Queenslanders want Juliar to take the carbon tax to an election before implementation.

This Tax is electoral poison, and if Juliar wants to make it an election issue she will suffer results similar to NSW.

Lord give me patience - but hurry!

"Shadow Minister" writes (18 May 2011 5:13:28 AM) "Only at or above $40/t does anything other than coal based generation become commercially viable... ". So we need a higher price on carbon.

My suggestion was for $50 a tonne, under the slogan "Great Big Carbon Tax Cuts for Everyone": http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/03/great-big-carbon-tax-cuts-for-everyone.html

However, it seems more likely that a lower price will be introduced and then gradually increased. Whatever technique is used, scientists say carbon emissions need to be reduced and economists say a price is the most efficient way to do that. This will not be a pleasant process, but it is necessary and the longer we delay, the harder it will be.

Some years ago there was a warning about a hole in the Ozone layer, found to be due to gas from air conditioners and tins of hairspray. Makers of the chemicals responsible scoffed at this idea and warned of the economic consequences of curbing their production. But global action was taken, the emissions reduced, the hole is under control and industry survived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

For my part, I am teaching how IT can be used to reduce carbon emissions, in a relatively painless way, which can increase profits: http://www.tomw.net.au/green/

latest thought is
we each get a base allowance..[of TRADEABLE carbon credits]
let those who want credits..BUY them from the least users of co2

so take the big numbers
figure out a medium..[fair share for all]
place it in the carbon credit bank
give each an EQUAL share
and use your credits
to pay your tax...

[if YOU USE/abuse more

ITS YOU WHO MUST PAY MORE
by bying them from the least abusive

it must be seen to be fair
use more
pay more

we can use our carbon credits
to support our jobs...if we got the credit

also no more cash grants for gren stuff
JUST LOANS..that must be repaid in full
[intrst free for 7 years..
then @ 10%..per year]

USERS are revenue neutral
ABUSERS..must pay more..for the more they polute

Lexi I can not help there but consider this.
One day the lie that is coalitions carbon change policy's will be in many books in your Library.
Shadow Ministers out pourings,and many others will live in the humor sections.
MY FEARS, the ones that I think concern you about me,are people buy this junk.
Labor must look to its past,1975 was not unlike today, a party failing its self and media driven by big money interests, intent on removing them.
Consider the 74% who wanted climate change, note Gillard spoke against it, we dropped it,many will not except climate change tax.
ETS will come, it may be Turnbull who introduces it.
LIE? yes look at this, the intention of putting a price on carbon, NEVER WAS just to cut this country or the worlds emissions in the short term.
Abbott knows that.
It was to price fossil fuels out of the market, to drive new fuel new power cleaner greener, an event that will not happen until it costs less than to continue polluting.
Lie,s miss truth self interest, and bought and paid for protection of fossil fuel owners has purchased conservative politics in this country.Hope that helps while you wait for God.

Dear Belly,

Here's another website that you and others may enjoy:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/13/devils-details-and-there-were-none

Rabbiting on about the costs of living presures are really just a political "code for greed." But what can we expect from a Party whose ideology of greed, leaves no room for social equity, compassion, or the idea of an egalitarian society.

Read the article - it sums it all up very well.

Yes good stuff Lexi, I took your advice some time ago and went to this site.
Get the Emails but can not contribute, did not handle the computer generated bit that keeps idiots out,use that one SM.
My eyes are not up to it some days.
Watch question time Labor very much on the front foot today.
Watch this prediction and see it come true, I promise.
The Federal coalition within 3 years, will adopt a cost on carbon policy.
As silly as it sounds,this once great party has conceded its policy's to follow the American Republicans, and the worst of them.
Turnbull is a shoe in,as it becomes clear Abbott is as dangerous as we know, they will dump him and his policy's.

Belly,

Wishing it will not make it so. Based on the reliability of your previous predictions, I would not put money on it.

I watched portions of the debate, and Juliar failed to answer a single question, hardly a stellar performance. The news report this morning commented on her inability to give a single straight answer.

Turnbull is the favourite Liberal leader as polled by Labor voters, but after his inflated ego made him defend the policy for which he was dumped, his personal standing within the liberal caucus has fallen considerably.

As for a price on carbon, the liberal policy is to review this as and when Australia's major trading partners move on this issue. So while this is probably inevitable, I would say that 2013 is a little early.

Dear Belly,

In policy terms Tony Abbott and his party just doesn't take the Australian people seriously. Perhaps it is time that someone reminded the Opposition that we had an election - they lost. And, unless they present meaningful alternatives to the government's policies the results will be the same at the next election. Being superficial and irresponsible just doesn't cut it with most people.

Whereas the ALP take the voters seriously for every penny. Their policies are a joke, and are announced before negotiations have begun in earnest.

The Malaysians must think Australians are a joke. The negotiations are being screwed up by Juliar's desperation to announce an agreement. She has now signalled to the Malaysian negotiators that she needs to close the deal at all costs, so they are going to ask for more and more.

On top of this, while Howard's pacific solution complied with the letter of the UNHCR agreement, there is indication that the Malaysian agreement does not.

It must be humiliating for Juliar as the architect of the ALP refugee policy after berating the coalition for years to end up implementing something that is, as human rights is concerned, far worse.

Lexi I agree ,in fact want as you do, things to settle down, facts take the place of fear.
I do not think I am over dramatizing it, Big money interests, and Medea interests have no trouble paying for influence.
Note both conservative party's ARE THE ONLY ONES to take tobacco election funds.
Note too Abbott is a former Minister for health, and reluctant to side with plain packs for smokes.
Add to this his PROMISE not to except the mining tax miners have agreed to, see links in Medea and mining .
I however shared once the view Australian voters would not be coned by lies, they however proved me wrong.
Climate change is real few doubt the science, Labor contributed to us not having an ETS conservatives too GREENS A CONSERVATION party throttled it.
Truth will out we will get an ETS we will get changed leadership, in both sides of the house.
We will get past bought and paid for betrayal of our country's best interests by politicians telling us black is white Abbott will be judged by others ,not unlike what we say about him.

Dear Belly,

Abbott and his supporters want it both ways (poor things) - arguing that the government has been a profligate spender that will never return the budget to surplus while at the same time excoriating it for its minor cuts to so called "middle-class welfare."

They don't present a meaningful alternative to the government's policies and this makes it all the harder to take this Opposition seriously. Tony Abbott and his team may believe that they should be the government of Australia. But they're not - and won't be, unless they start to take the Australian people seriously.

You're right - positive outcomes will eventually win out over empty rhetoric and superficial, irresponsible condemnations.

i note the persistant abuse of the word ...'big'
big poluters/big tobacco[big new taxes]

small minded
small thinking people
love using..[ab-using]..the word big
thinking that calling a thought big..makes it big..that in reality is small

[OK SPIN WORD...for this year..
is '''*BIG""..

OR is big a LOADED WORD?
A..test marketed 'word'?

[you know 'big tobacco'....only]

and or .."big poluters *only..will pay"}

seems the little minded party
is picking on anyone..they call...'big'

is govt getting too big
for its role/purpose?

or too much small minded..[petty]..thinking

when is the big issue
going to become managable?

when is a nanny state
getting too big for its boots

why cant govt issue free licences
that we then can trade..in real cash...
[if were not a big ab/user..]

IS GOVT TOO BIG?

once the last tax dollar
gets spent employing public servants
or on..free solar cell's..[solar sell's?.]..on ya roof

yeah i know they arnt free...
till you payed back ten %..of their true price
and reaped in a nice top-up..[inputs]..resale price..for sunlit inputs

but how about this
govt stick to issuing 'licences' for carbon polution
via its own carbon bank...issues us each and equal share
of carbon credit..[held in trust in OUR own carbon account]

and a market
to sell your 'credit on'..
at tax time...to pay using them...

you simply forward your account number..to your energy suplier
who auto deducts from your carbon credit account...

[that deducts auto from your money account..
if your TOO BIG a user..[abuser]..
of your free carbon credit/limitation

OUG I am watching you with interest, your efforts to improve are noted and admired.
But mate I truly am unsure just what you are on about.
Forget your need for the weed,is tobacco not big?
Given your one man stance that deaths are not related to smoking just maybe they, coal, mining, power petro chemicals, do not want change?
Not a clue what your policy as described could do about over use of harmful fossil fuels.
How it promotes change to cleaner fuels.
Or if you think we should try for change.
We will get around this very real conspiracy to cover up the BIG CASH behind polluting our planet.

In an interesting admission Tim Flannery admits that without a global effort to reduce CO2 emissions there will be no real difference.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-one-country-can-save-the-reef-says-tim-flannery/story-fn59niix-1226061500198

For those really interested in what Tim Flannery is concerned about try the following website:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/no-doubt-humans-causing-global-warming-20110523-1ezdu.html?...

A dead end street if I ever saw one SM.
Yes it is true, but not even a chance, and you like Abbott know it, we will act alone.
EU has fined Quantas already, and I would have thought the equally interesting quote from today *Australian exports could suffer because we do not have a charge on Carbon* is worth quoting.
The deception behind coalition statements like that post SM is in very real danger of blowing up in the face of impending release of details of country's charging for emissions.

Lexi,

Thanks for pointing out that Tim Flannery is a climate change advocate. I would never have guessed.

What I pointed out was that even he admits that without the rest of the world working on climate change, there will be no reduction to the effects in Australia, even with the carbon tax.

Belly,

As for this EU "fine" it is classified as an environmental border tariff, and applies to all non European airlines. I am interested to see how long it holds, as the US, China, Canada and others not only plan to challenge the tax at the WTO but are going to impose punitive tariffs on EU airlines flying to China, the US, etc.

Secondly, the EU is a relatively small market for our goods and we buy twice as much from them as they do from us. A trade war would hurt them far more.

Climate change science is a subject on which many people actually know little but feel they ought to know a great deal. It is therefore a perfect subject for people to give a pseudo-answer and that answer will be in line with their broader political opinions. In other words many people take the limits of their own vision for the limits of the world. Tim Flannery is not one of those people.

To suggest that nothing will happen even if we attempt to take any action is understandable for those who have a propensity to discount the future - "a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush."
Discounting the future is one of the most common practices in the business world, and therefore we should confront the practice head-on. What are the reasons for some people's apparent short-sightedness?
The Australian has an agenda (like Andrew Bolt, and Shadow Minister),
selective quoting is part and parcel of what they do.

However, there are psychological, political, reasons why these people favour the present rather than the future, and of course there are economic reasons.
The psychological reasons have to do with risk aversion, any one of us might not be around to benefit from a good time in the future - so let's have it now regardless of the long-term consequences. And of course the economic reasons are - "where there's smoke there's jobs,"
and profits to be made. Some people and political parties see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by product of desired economic development. Also, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, and technically complex. However, in general, most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution - its only the less developed societies that are more concerned with economic growth, that tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it. Lucily our government is forward-thinking - and does believe in long-term solutions.

yes lexie tim flannelry isnt a sellout
nor a hooker..he is a saint...lol

of course he has no adgenda
he hasnt invested so much of his name
and honur..in this issue..lol

but lets get this straight
there are too many issues here

eg..the science..[those caught defrauding the numbers]
there are the ol,..al gore..*lies...[less said about those the better}

of course csiro/nasa are completly free..from govt bias
and bolt and me..are going to clean/up..from no tax
were going to get rich..not*..trading carbon-credits

mate your usually so clever
yet you cant see this tax..wont do nothing
as if money*[tax]..was able to fix..the weather..[cli/mate]..

but it will enrich those selling the solar/
wind...coal-seam/gas..scams

THINK HOW MUCH EXTRA POLUTION
just in making these..it will cost..in co2 alone

yes its great
working off our guilt..
but lets be FAIR...co2 is ONLY one* greenhouse gas

nitrous oxide and methane are FAR WORSE
but they..get no tax

were going to loose too much farm land
planting mono-culture forrests..to store carbon away for 100 years[lol]

the lie of doing nothing..or doing something
is all a lie..if nothing needed be done

but here we got economists/accountants/bankers...
greenies..rich business millionairs..non smokers..and big poluters

all saying we going to die
based on a lie

here we got polititions..from maggie thatcher
[who said the sky is COOLING..we need to tax you

to juliar gullable canard guiltlard..saying
its getting hotter..[the poles are melting]...'we must tax you..

the prediction's are....[lol]
how did they..[you]..go..predicting
the bankers going bust?
or its safe to load a waashing line

[assuming the science..is soooo sure...
is like a wether [weather]..girl/man..
is sure*..

..tommorow*..
it will be
MORE GUILT..!]

well guilt...is how they con you
into fight or flight..a cnditioned response
like pavloves dogs...a simple reflex..making you susseptable

TO THEIR
CON-ditioning

tomorrow its going to be colder

oh no tomorow
its going to be hotter

duh

the only sure thing...is tomorrow
you get a big new tax

and the day after your kids
will be paying..a much bigger tax

be sure tomorrow
they will be speculating up the price of co2
just like they now do with the price of your fuel

and you will be forced to pay..
or repay..[if you got conned into carbon sequestation...
and then..got hit by a default..[loss of assets]

in the carbon ..YOU CLAIMED
you sequestrated away

and tomorow it will be
the same as to day..

change we can get by spin decieved by
no different from what it was yesterday

but the same as it will be again...sometime
..the day after..the new tax dont change nothing..
but how much tax govt steals..from your purse..today

and thus..from your kids mouths...
by lying/laying on the guilt
selling us spin

"To suggest that nothing will happen even if we attempt to take any action is understandable for those who have a propensity to discount the future"

Such as Tim Flannery?

Please show me how Australia with about 1.4% of the world's emissions by reducing this by 5% will make a significant difference in the face of India and China increasing their emissions by more than 100% of Australia's emissions every year?

Otherwise everything you said in the last post is unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo.

Much can be said, little will be heard,so Shadow Minister I leave the floor to you and my old mate OUG.
Small minded is it not OUG?

SM,

Your claim that everything I said in my last post is unsubstantiated
"mumbo-jumpo," has me wondering which part of my last post you're referring to exactly?

As for why Australia should proceed when India and China can't seem to be able to (at present at least), that is a question that you need to answer for yourself. Your conscience should lead you onto the right path. Because as we all know the most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution even though the populous less developed societies are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution as simply part of the price they have to pay for it.

It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present era to get the public, and the governments we elect, to act on the toxic, life-taking efforts of tobacco. Eventually sanity prevailed, although it took over 40 years.

Economists know that pollution, resource degradation and all sorts of negative environmental impacts come at a genuine cost to society -
usually not to all of society, but significant parts of it. One person's free disposal of toxic waste is another person's cost. That cost can be severe and life-threatening, as with water-borne diseases and particular air pollutants. These facts we're all aware of of - and depending on how climate change plays out, extreme weather events could be more like a nuclear war, and come at the expense of all.
But hey, if you regard it all as "unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo,"
then you should not be surprised if you're not taken seriously.

It seems that new ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities they open up for the improvement of the human lot are seen by those who are comfortable in their ideologies. Little has changed in 2000 years since Socrates' murder by the state, when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts.

cont'd ...

My apologies. I left a couple of words in the sentence that should read: -"...new ideas instead of being welcomed... are seen by those who are comfortable in their ideologies - as a threat."

yes belly run away
things will work out fine
when the unionist takes over

lexie/quote..""new ideas instead of being welcomed...""

finding new guilt taxes is hardly new
finding a way to fix the problem..
by using other govt powers...is

but you cleverly ignore the truelly...*NEW
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4480

new ideas/"are seen by those who are comfortable
in their ideologies - as a threat."

i agree with you my dear

much easier to get govt
to put on a new tax

then suck/on the govt teat's
coorperate welfare

free solar cells for all those to whom $1000/$3000
is nothing...*compared to their bill

my $50 dollar power bill
means 20/60 bill periods..for me to get mine back
but for those abusing power with bills of 500/600 to a thousand bucks
its a bargin..

[and thats how govt works..
for those who know how to push its buttons]

like govt bying water back..[in a droudt]
recalling one billion..buys 2000 quality homes
for those getting the govt cash/grants or subsidies
[while whining about the dole bludgers not getting minimum wage]

and ignore the rich list
of miners..getting your resources for near nuthing
using borrowed money..and others labours/skills..to steal the peoples wealth

you believe the spin
its you lot that got ya ears closed

your hero said nothing will change
[except the climate will keep changing]..just like it allways has

the rich get richer
and the ignorant get dumber

Lexi,

As for mumbo jumbo, try "Discounting the future is one of the most common practices in the business world, and therefore we should confront the practice head-on."

Have you any idea of what "discounting the future" actually means? obviously you don't or you wouldn't write such drivel.

I work in a field where new ideas are generated and innovation is driven, and I can say that I have generated more than a few, saving or helping to generate millions of dollars for my employers.

However, there is far more to innovation than simply generating new ideas, one also needs:

1 A clear idea of what you wish to achieve,
2 An environment and people to generate new ideas and concepts,
3 A rigorous evaluation of the consequences of the ideas, and
4 A rigorous commercial and technical evaluation of the costs and benefits.

As far as the carbon tax is concerned Labor and the Greens are ignoring or covering up items 3 and 4.

As per my first post in the thread, below $40/t there will be no incentive to change the method of generating electricity, and there will be little to no reduction in emissions in Australia let alone the world.

Given the two speed economy, and a lack of global action, the manufacturing sector is really struggling, and for many of them the carbon tax will be the last straw, with their production and emissions moving overseas to less efficient plants.

So the benefits of a carbon tax are a minuscule, unmeasurable decrease in emissions, countered by the negatives of severe economic consequences.

This latest survey shows that the majority of Australians are not buying the BS that only the big polluters will pay.

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

shadow..this issue runs along party lines
there are those who believe john howard is allways wrong
and the labrat greenies..union lefties..ran by bankers..are allways right.

there are as you said many aspects
how much need's doing to get how much cooling
and colling it how much..then what if we go too far..and we need to make it warm

thing is people are blind..[selectivly..and insultingly]
im a hollocaust 'denier'..cause i dont get the science..[not only dumb..but ignorant]

and they cant see labrats main attack is destraction
even with the budget its tony's numbers wont add up
so he dont release numbers..lol[learnt that from labrats]

we dont need to know the price...[trust us]
we dont need to know what SCEMES will get funding
we dont need to know who..to hold to account when its all revealed a lie..

we dont know who the 1000 collecting this tax will be
[the biggest poluters?]..ie the concrete makers..farmers/miners?

its funny how they can think aso clever
yet not see the scam for what it is

you cant argue with closed minds
and worse when they turn out wrong
the blind leading the blinded astray

then we get the guilty silence

and then..get back to name calling

tony loves big tobacco
tony is in the pocket of the miners

tony told us what he knew..
why cant you..[not you s*m]

Gentlemen:

Be aware that on issues which require radical solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and political interests, censorship exists today.

In 2003, Tor Hundloe was the first Australian recognised by the award of an Order of Australia for his development and practice of an economics in line with ecological reality and ethical imperatives.
Emeritus Professor Hundloe in his book "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," tells us that:

"In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly discussing the implications of climate change. Management was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human development status. Its science is world class. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report on climate change
(2006), the Australian Govertnment's position had changed - yet the
then Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming."

Hundloe tells us that "there is a tried and true way of reducing and, if need be, completely curtailing adverse environmental impacts:
taxation on pollution. Taxes reduce consumption. If high enough they curtail it. I am an economist. I have worked as a professional economist at the highest level of my profession (in both public and private sectors) and I have never met an economist, or read a report by an economist, which does not advocate pollution taxes as the preferred means of dealing with environmental harm."

Hundloe goes on to inform us that in the early 1970s - well over 30 years ago - the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended the use of pollution taxes. Over 80 years ago, one of the last century's most eminent economists, Pigou, called for the same thing. To this day pollution taxes are named after him.

Hundloe stresses that we as global citizens need to put aside our narrow self-interests and work together for a better world.

Lexi,

Before throwing the country into yet another expensive and punitive tax regime, could you stand back and say what the average Australian will gain from it?

SM,

Very simply - we can only hope that this will ensure the survival of our children and their future generations as well as the animal species with which we share this planet instead of becoming a dead planet like the rest of our solar system. If you don't understand that, then there's nothing further to discuss. See you on another thread.

Lexi,

Yet another mumbo jumbo motherhood statement with no specifics.

shadow asked of lexi
""could you stand back and say
..what the average Australian will gain from it?
i wont reply at this stage
but note lexies reply
[so will append that]


LEXIE/quote..."SM,

Very simply
we can only hope""

i would expect more certainty than hope
[but will let that pass thriough to the keeper]

hope....""that this will ensure the survival of our children""

of all the threats
put out by the end/time co2 change-lings
i havnt heard any saying your kids going to die
so lets say the kids will survive...

and are more threatend by disease
or war or accident...[which govts havnt figured out/how to tax[...YET!}..

""and their future generations""
thats not a real threat or danger
stranger danger is more real a possability

""as well as the animal species""
now there we have some threats
like a few degree temp change...[lol]..
could kill some sensative species..[so we are told]

BUT hey look at the wether reports
there is a ten degre DIFFERNCE betwen day/night temps
a few degrees is being a bit sensative[or alarmist]

how about the much convoluted 'evolution'..
that ALLWAYS allows for a surviver
that adapts to..*ANY* change

[think of dino-sores extinction events
please note/recall..*SOMETHING SURVIVED..!

critters/..""with which we share this planet
instead of becoming a dead planet
like the rest of our solar system.""

guess what
earth is going to die
it will get cold...it will get so hot
that eventually the sun burns..us/it to its basic element's

[BUT RECALL
science..speculates*..]
that life came from other-places
..[outer-space][extra/terrestial]....'life'

so let me recall
your own words
to relieve your own fears

""If you don't understand that,
then there's nothing further to discuss.""

if you cant name names
make specific predictions
that when refutted refute the topic
then we are being scammed...

[i say we but exclude me
/and 68%..of the people..who have not
been begotten at..[baffled by the lies]

see your fears..are groundless
the puff/spin/lies..stand on feet/found-ations of sand

SM,

Ignorance is the major cause of disconnects between people. This often leads to narrow-mindedness and, worse, to an "us-them" divide.
Ignorance, whether a result of narrow religious teaching or cultural learning or political beliefs, is one determinant of behaviour. It doesn't account for every aspect of human behaviour. For example, it doesn't account for self-interest.

It is important to recognise that - in any population of people there is likely to be a proportion of very self-interested people, as well as a majority of people who are most capable of seeing the wisdom of living by a golden rule of co-operation and reciprocity.

It is therefore necessary to recognise that there are people for whom greed comes to supplant other human attributes and aspirations.

Finally, I understand your lack of comprehension skills. But that's out of my hands. You and your political party does not deal with specifics. You're only capable of demanding them from other people, when you've got nothing else.

It doesn't work. As you will eventually find out.

Lexi,

I prefer to have the facts and data about global warming and other topics instead of the shallow sound bites and motherhood statements of which you appear so fond.

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

Just look at the CO2 levels over the past geological periods, and the corresponding temperatures. Levels have been as high as 2000ppm while life existed on earth. There is no danger of life on earth being extinguished any time soon, and to claim so is raw ignorance.

I have asserted that the carbon tax will do little if nothing without a global agreement. This is the fundamental flaw in Labor's argument which you and others have not even tried to refute, and Labor refuses even to talk about.

This is politics. Ignore the inconvenient facts.

Shadow ,
An interesting graph. In any one but the most doctrinaire disciple of AGW it must inspire some scepticism.

And, here’s another:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And what (should) inspire even more scepticism, is the observation that most of the same people, on OLO, who advocate heavily for AGW-- and all its trappings -- are also in the forefront of other New World Order Snake Oil schemes.

lexie your arnt dumb
so why act like it?

cant you see this is like a school bully
demanding half of your lunch money
via threats that are delusional

you might think of me as a stooge for industry
if this makes you fel better..but mate.look at which INDUSTRY is reaping in your current tax subsidies...!

how much of your power bill's increase..[50%..in 4 years]
has gone to subsidising solar cells for those big users who got a spare grand..or who's 3 monthly bill comes near that

my current bill is 57 dollars
for me the input/grand [1000]..is equal to 20 bill peeriods
for you who's bill is 500..its two bill periods

my carbon tax useage is just over one ton per year
[plus i ride a push bike..so no extra taxes there either]

thing is mate its a scam
we will be together paying 25 BILLION per year[@25 per ton]
when the total grenhouse gas/income FOR USA IS 6 billion..[$us.]

business has put forward 10 $ per ton
kevin said 5

your greedy commie/greenies want nothing less that 40$ per ton
and what sort of job would greenies like to do..[sell solar cells?]
[trade in carbon credits?]..spend govt money?

tell the bully
NO more fre lunches
buy your own lunch..stop taking your meat from my plate

THINK HOW MUCH ALL THIS EXTRA INDUSTRY
building solar cells/wind turbines
is doing to industry

[THAT POLUTES IN BUILDING THESE TEMPORAY FIXES]
solar cells got a max life of 25 years
wind is so high maintance..as to cost 4 times the TRUE rate of coal

then we got the other lies
building infastructure

IE
GAS PIPEline'S..to/from..*COAL*seam GAS wells
over 40,000 of em on the east side of oz
each leaking methane

[100 times worse that co2]

if it dont all make sense
ITS SPIN>>>!

Gentlemen,

We obviously are not getting anywhere in this discussion and I'm not really interested in becoming involved in any kind of a slanging match - you're so much better at that than me.

No matter what I write - its regarded as "shallow sound bites and
motherhood statements."
Whereas, -there is no doubt the climate is changing. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear. We're allready seeing the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a changing climate. Human activities - the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are triggering changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

We need to start taking action now to promote new sources of renewable and cleaner energy otherwise we will pay a much higher cost in the future. Decision we make now will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandhcildren experience.

Taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for our economy, ofr jobs and for the environment. Not only is putting a price on pollution critically important to our children's future - it's ensuring a healthy environment to live in and new high skill jobs for their work.

The split in Liberal Party ranks deepens. Finally, we may see the days
return - of Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser for which we've been waiting for decades.

look at what your saying lexie

""there is no doubt the climate is changing.""
climate changes all the time
now for egsample we are going into a cooling stage
thus their RUSH..!..the lies are unraveling...fast..

""The evidence is overwhelmingly clear.""

yes it is...BUTclear in what direction
a tax fixes it?
on one greenhouse gas only?

clear..that climate is changing..JUST LIKE it allways has?

clear we will be paying..HOW MUCH?
clear the lobby is vast...and rich..
cause its been sukking at govt subsidy for years..?

""We're allready seeing the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of a changing climate.""'

please validate..with data..!
[the econmomic change is obvious
they been taking our govt subsidies for ages
and one by one they FAIL

[look at ethinol subsidy..or the 12 billion fuel subsidy
or the solar cells subsidy..or green bin subsidy
or the wave power subsidy...
or the geo thermal subsidy

ONE THING IN COMMON
they all failed
[hey there is your social costs]

""We need to start taking action now
to promote new sources of renewable and cleaner energy"'

cause they WANT YOUR TAX SUBSIDIES....NOW*
before the lie becomes more clear..!

""otherwise we will pay a much higher cost..in the future.""

think of the BILLIONS we allready wasted on failed things
WERE PAYING TOO HIGH A COST..right now..!

"" Decision we make now
will determine the severity of climate change
our children and grandhcildren experience.""

well look at SPAIN..it went gren BIGTIME
many jobs..but now gone broke...[and the jobs are gone]

and their children WILL BE
under austerity measures
for a LONG long TIME.

same thing in ireland italy uk portugal and greece
they had a tradable tax thingy going there too
[and gues what..it failed there too]

""Taking action on climate change
is the right thing to do.""

a mantra
just keep saying it mindlessly

its the right thing
[its not what your country can do for you
but what you does for your cuntry]

lie back and think of england
[have one for the govt
one for war..and one to pay for it all]

""It is the right thing
for our economy,""

yes the bankers can be trusted
we never ned to bailout bwankers..lol

""for jobs""
look at spains jobs
ALL DONE..now..let go build somewhere else

""and for the environment.""
you know how cold OUTERSPACE IS?
its below freezing..you know how warm it can get in a freezer?"

same thing here
all extra heat goes out into space
our biggest REAL threat would be cooling..!
the very things..THOSE who think we are too many really want..
[but first suck the last tax dollar from us]

""Not only is putting a price on pollution""
WELL if it's THAT IMPORTANT
tax them all..TAX THEM ALL>>!

ie nitrogen..from farming MAKES nitrousoxide..120 times WORSE a greenhouse gas than co2..[but farming is egsempt..plus farming will get paid to plant forrests..and stop growing food]

or how about home compost bins[as bad as a cow]
making methane...like the leakey gas wells leaking..methane
[another bad GRENhouse gas]

or how about that cleaning fluid for cleaning solar cells
[you got it...a greenhouse gas..not being taxed either]

cause the game is kill us all
after taxing us to death..

""new high skill jobs""
installing..PREBUILT/imported temporary solutions

[these 'fixes'..have an average life expectation of 30 years]
then they cost us all the earth ..to replace..AGAIN

OUG,

Over the past quarter century, pollution of the environment has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet and the health of many of its species, including ourselves.

This problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve, for several reasons. First, some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable product of desired economic development -
"Where there's smoke, there's jobs." Secondly, control of pollution requires international co-ordination, for one country's emissions can end up in other countries air or food. Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little public awarness that it is taking place.
Fourthly, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, technically complex and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution, it's only the populous less developed societies are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it.

Our government is willing to take hard decisions about reducing emissions - it doesn't want to have an international reputation for dragging the chain on climate action. Australia's only hope of forestalling seriously damaging climate change is a strong international agreement to curb emissions. We increase our chances of such an agreement if we ourselves demonstrate a willingness to take hard decisions about reducing emissions.

I hope this helps you understand the situation better.

Lexi, a question. Do you have a solar hot water system on
your roof?

Yabby,

We used gas for heating but we do have solar panels for electricity.
And our electricity bills thus far have been in the credit. As a result of our gas heating becoming disfunctional - we're currenlty heating the house with electric oil space heaters and its quite comfortable. Our neighbours as a result of our installation of solar electrical panels have been following our example.

So there you go Lexi. Solar hot water available, has been doing
a wonderful job for 30 years or so, you burn gas to heat your
water.

Why?

Lexi,

"We must have a carbon tax because it is the right thing"? There is a motherhood statement if I ever heard one.

You have consistently failed to address the one question that really counts: What effect will Australia's carbon tax have on global emissions if most other countries have none?

lexie..as andrew bolt pointed out..co2..is a clear gass
[ie no smoke in the sky...THEY ARNT TAXING POLUTION
only the unseen gas

at bellies topic..we hear the leaper saying
about the reefs are melting...he calls the reefs chalk
but the reefs are calcium..LIME...lime is what neutralises acid
[so the more a feef melts..the LESS acidic it becomes..but you forget basic science]

shells getting thinner is evolution
but also putting BACK enough 'chalk'..to make their babies shells
[its self balancing dear heart]

i note you got solar on your roof
so how much did you pay
and how much did i pay..

[ie my govt subsidy]..for *your solar savings..?

see the joke
we got a KATE/bank-cheque..on tv telling us were bad
[yet on her own mansions roof sit over 60 solar cells]
estimated cost @ 1000$ per cell=$60,000[jeez how much power does she use?

did she get govt subsidy
for her gross excessive abuse of power?

next joke is we got a solar ship..[oops sorry boat]
with 800 solar cells on its extended deck
did they get a subsidy i wonder

[cost 800,000]
to run a large twin hull ferry size boat
PLUS REPLACING THE BATTERIES..[every few years]

[noting its going in..for service at cairns/next]
seems its batteries wear out every few thousand..amp hours .//./lol

but there is yet more
to the joke

see with smokers they learned guilt works
make fools feel guilty you can tax them into their graves

but there is more
usa raises 6 billion..from quater of a billion people

and we 20 million..will be raising 25 billion..
per year]..

[but we dont know EVEN the starting price..[yet]..
nor how much that 'price'..will go up to

so ya kids will be paying
whatever the bankers think we MUST pay
this simngle issue..will cost us the world

the kids will be saying to you
mummmy you paid all our money..to build a forrest
that dont grow food...

now mummy im hungry...
so mummy what will you do?

Dear Yabby,

Solar hot water still has a gas back-up. And when we purchased our house it was already on gas hot water. (this was the only option at the time that was available) so your criticism is not very fair. As soon as solar became a viable option we chose electricity as the option. Now we are looking at other ways to "green" our home. BTW - what are you doing in this direction? Our son has solar hot water installed recently - but he still relies on gas back-up because the sun doesn't heat it adequately.

SM,

It's obvious that you either don't want to hear what's being said - or choose to ignore it because I've consistently answered your question. I think that you're simply stirring.

However, I'll quote again -- what I've stated previously: most developed nations are trying to curb their emissions.

"Australia's only hope of forestalling seriously damaging climate change is a strong international agreement to curb emissions. That's mostly out of our hands; but we increase our chances of such an agreement if we ourselves demonstrate a willingness to take hard decisions about reducing emissions."

"This is where "direct action" fails most demonstrably - since it is clear such a policy will see an increase in emissions, not a cut, and it will just confirm our international reputation for dragging the chain on climate action. And in such a context, our current 5% target is inadequate - seriously inadequate for convincing other nations that we are serious about reducing emissions. It needs to be increased perhaps substantially and we need a serious emissions abatement policy to demonstate good faith to the other nations."

Lexi, my point is very valid indeed! Solar hot water is stupidly
simple and it works. Yes, it can have gas or electrical back up,
as your solar cells have. But for many months of the year it will
work 100%, even in winter it will work, increasing water temps
substantially from ice cold to luke warm. That saves burning gas.

Hot water is by far the biggest user of household electricity. If
you want to cut electricity use, start there. Your solar cells are
all very well, but are largely subsidised by other users paying higher power charges. So rather then "saving the planet" your reasons for installing them can be put down to enlightened self interest (others paying for your system), as anything else.

My point really is that whilst people like you pontificate the virtues and need for a carbon tax, 70% of you haven't even bothered to install the bleeding obvious, which is solar hot water.

Lexi,

No you haven't answered my question. Indirectly I can only assume that you know full well that it will make no difference to the global emissions.

Your statement "but we increase our chances of such an agreement if we ourselves demonstrate a willingness to take hard decisions about reducing emissions." is completely unfounded, and is pure wishful thinking. Anyone who thinks negotiating is best served by playing one's hand first is in La la land.

The EU emits about 1/4 of the developed world's emissions, and even them presently exempts most electricity generation and industry, with most facing a partial ETS only in 2017. So this carbon tax would put us in front of even the EU, and streets ahead of the rest of the developed world.

lexi/con
buzzwords

""Australia's..*only hope""

ONLY?

while ignoring solar hotwater
is heating up water..in ya garden hose
[which is how i use it]..

so the first buzzword is
""ONLY HOPE""...lol

thats the sort of thing
an abusive boyfriend*..SAYS to his abused girl
[im your 'only hope'..thus take my* abuse]

only hope of what?
""of forestalling
..seriously damaging climate change""

so forstalling
sounds like the forskin
some remove..because it..{removal]..makes 'you..special''

its the same indefinate spin/buzz-buzz *forstalling..lol
[boy is that ever good...lol..convincing science...lol]

lets hope to forskin
[sorry stall/fore]

its so sad

so whats all this hopefull forstalling about?..
"is a strong international agreement..to curb emissions.""

oh i thought a new/TAX..

let fore-go..for-stalling
and mandate ALL HOT-WATER..TO BE SOLAR..!

*problem fixed
[direct action]..

yes..""That's mostly..out of our hands;""
if you dont*..get a free
or SUBSIDISED,..
*govt hose..

..""but we increase our chances
of such an agreement""'

we want ACTION*
not binding blinding/agreements!
based on new/rage-green-spin,..

to subsise those..too dumb to figure out
how to lay..their own garden-hose..in the sun..[sol]

...""if we ourselves
demon-strate a willingness
to take hard decisions..about reducing [C02]emissions."

GREAT POINT

HOW MUCH
HAS GETTING YOUR*...*FREE SOLAR CELLS
*REDUCED ....*YOUR*..consumption..of electicity?

really answer that..!

your power US_AGE..has gone
from what...[pre solar subsidy]..?
to what?

..now your getting more power...
[im sure your using MORE...]

go on
present..*YOUR numbers..!

[i have halved my usage
in one year..!]

my last bill...[with no solar grants/or other stuff]
was UNDER 50 bucks...

[it used to be $89]...
i really doudt yours is anywhere near mine...!

so..*declare how much..*you used
pre the free solar cells
and post solar

SEE THE JOKE...!

..."This is where "direct action"
has been subverted"..

JUST TO GET A NEW TAX

thus fails most demonstrably
since it is clear...such a policy
will see an increase in emissions, not a cut,

and it will just confirm
our international reputation for...""

action that dont change..NUTHIN..
or action for the boys/club
action..for special/greenie
industry delusions

selling a tax/
BY FEAR
spin
lies...

its like the smokers-tax
all-over..a/gain...

[a tax gain]

fool you once
shame on them*

fool you twice
shame on you*..!

Gentlemen:

The Nation's top scientists have presented the "Critical Decade" Report to the Parliament bringing together some of the best and most recent science into climate change, its effects on Australia, and outlining how important it is to act now.

How many Coalition members of Parliament bothered to turn up to be briefed by our top scientists? Just three. Certainly not Tony Abbott.

It's little wonder that Tony Abbott continues to spread his misinformation campaign when he won't even take the time to get briefed with the facts and figures properly. If the Opposition won't even listen to what scientists are telling us, how could anyone expect them to have a proper plan to act on climate change.

I'll leave you gentlemen to your opinions. You're entitled to them.
Enjoy your discussions with each other. You have much in common.

Lexi,

The government hand picked the scientists that were not only versed in the field but held similar political views on the subject.

There was nothing new in their presentation, so why bother to turn up to a cut and paste party political broadcast.

I also noticed that once again, you avoided quantifying what the effect will be on global emissions if Australia implements a carbon tax.

Lexi, no need to go to parliament, the CSIRO has just published a free
book online, explaining everything, for anyone who wants to read it.

You miss the point entirely. Even if climate change is real, the question
of what to do about it, is another matter. As we have seen in your very own case,
you'll only act when there are $ in your pocket, subsidised by others.

So who will pay for your expenses? Amongst others, farmers of course.
Processing of meat and other exports, takes alot of power. Fuel to
grow crops, all required. The farm institute calculates that if
the carbon price is set at 36$, it will cost farmers around 20% of
their net income, to pay for all the indirect charges, passed on to
them. Unlike you, farmers cannot pass on those costs, overseas
markets won't wear it.

So pontificating about a levy is easy for you, fair enough.

Dear Yabby,

Talking about farmers...

This entire discussion is like putting a donkey in front of a cow,
one is braying, and the other one is mooing. Neither one speaks the same language.

We elect a government which forms policies in the interest of the majority - that's why there are elections if we're not happy with the final outcomes.

Our solar panels were our contribution to minimise carbon pollution. We contribute more to the electrical grid than we take out. Money was not an issue. After all the government demonstrated its concern about climate change by offering solar panels to the public. That's a first step - for many people.

BTW: I doubt that the government would be so insensitive as to punish Australia's food producers. They are offering off-sets to those in need which includes farmers. It would be sheer insanity to force farmers off the land and rely on food imports from overseas.

Misinformation and fear mongering are not very good ploys politically
because after a while people get tired of listening to the same old
rant. Check out facebook to see what others are saying about the
Opposition's stance on climate change and on Tony Abbott.

Lexi

I am sure you were pleased to hear that John Hewson has added his voice of dissent to the far-right of the Libs.

And I AM sick of hearing Abbott's voice. Now he is calling for another election! Unbelievable. Not even big business is listening to him, instead they want to know how much of a carbon tax.

Won't be $40/ton but it will be a start. Even the Conservative Coalition Brits have a Carbon Tax, bringing them into line with the rest of the EU.

As for India and China, in addition to their rush into industrialisation, they are also investing and building clean renewable energy sources, in order to make the inevitable transition easier.

Hopefully, Australia won't be the last guy left peeing in the pool.

*This entire discussion is like putting a donkey in front of a cow,
one is braying, and the other one is mooing.*

Maybe for you Lexi, not for me. As a farmer, I am very good at
separating wheat from chaff :)

I remind you, on OLO I consistently put a viewpoint about policies,
not parties. I criticise them all, when they deserve it and show
me anywhere, where I have ever claimed to be an Abbott supporter.

Fact is, not only were your panels subidised, fair enough. You sell
power to the grid for around 40c, then buy it back for 20c. I
should hope that you contribute to the cost of the grid, it costs
money to keep all those poles and systems ticking ready for your
use. The pv panel scheme, set up as it is right now, is nothing
but a Ponzi scheme, where a few are subsidised by the rest.

You are of course free to install solar hot water heating at any
time, but its not the same kind of Ponzi scheme as the PV panels.
No wonder Govts have had to put a break on things, as people
hopped aboard in far bigger numbers then they had ever imagined.

*They are offering off-sets to those in need which includes farmers.*

They have offered no such thing, simply stated that they won't
tax farting cattle and sheep. Industry will wear extra processing
costs, so industry passes them on to farmers, who are at the end
of the chain. Farmers lose. Farmers don't have enough votes to
swing elections either. So the tyranny of the majority rules.

I don't care what others are saying about Abbott or anyone else.
I am basing my claims on the evidence available. Logic and
reason should prevail, over your arguing cows and donkeys.
Speak for yourself :)

Dear Ammonite,

John Hewson, Malcolm Turnbull, even John Howard and Malcolm Fraser support the carbon tax. The whole issue of the Opposition's stance on the carbon tax is to spread misinformation and fear mongering so that
Tony Abbott can keep on desperately demanding an election. The guy's delusional if he thinks that 9 months after the last election - Australia is seriously prepared to want another one, especially with him as leader.

I believe that Tony Abbott's the one who pees not only in his own pool, but now he wants to pee in everybody else's.

Dear Yabby,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired. Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations every time. An imperative point to remember is to always know your topic and not argue on an emotional level - but a mature, intelligent one. However you musn't sound too dogmatic. If you don't listen to the other person's opinion you will be deemed pig-headed and will subsequently be ignored. And finally, a minor admission should not make you sound weak, but rather less obstinate.

One final point, no one likes, or supports an abusive, illogical debater.

Hope this helps.

Dear Lexi,

You are quite correct. Now apply those points to your own debating
skills and you might be making some progress.

Arguments like "Malcolm Fraser thinks its a good thing, so it must
be" are hardly logical.

Now please address the points that I have raised, in a logical way.

cont'd ...

BTW - coming from a farming background myself - I appreciate your being able to tell the difference between wheat and chaff. But can you tell the difference between sheep and goats? ;-)

Yabby,

I've been trying to get out of this thread for some time. Only because I don't think that anything constructive will be achieved by my continuing to present further arguments on the subject. That's why I presented the donkey and cow scenario - you can't convince people once they've made up their minds - and as I stated earlier - I'm not interested in a slanging match.

BTW - the WA Farmer's Federation has thrown its support behind the Federal Government's proposed carbon tax. Senior Vice President- Dale Park says a warming planet is more of a concern to farmers than a carbon tax. (It seems that farmers rely on climate ;-) )

As Mr Park stresses - "If you don't do anything about it - you're going to keep adapting to a higher and higher temperature."

Some people tend to look at long-term consequences rather than short-term ones. It's a matter of priorities, I guess. I full understand your point of view.

http://www.nff.org.au/read/2085/carbon-tax-cripple-nations-farming-sector.html

Lexi, perhaps Dale Park was not aware at the time, that this could
slug farmers up to 36'000$ per farm. If farmers are slugged that
amount, why arn't librarians and architects slugged for the same?

But the issue remains, is it all a feelgood exercise or will it make
a difference? Nobody on OLO has been more vocal about the fact
that we are adding a quarter of a million extra people a day to
the planet, which is the giant elephant in the room. I have once
again raised the point recently, that Australia still does not fund
family planning in the third world, despite the 4 billion $ a year that
we spend. Religion still has its influence in our parliament.

These are global issues that need addressing. Charging a feelgood tax,
which then alot of traders can make money from, is hardly a real
solution.

Encourage people to install solar hot water, encourage people to buy
LED tvs rather then Plasmas, encourage people to install PV panels
without Ponzi tariff subsidies. Encrourage people to hang their
washing in the sunshine rather then a dryer. Encourage good home
insulation. But don't be fooled that a feelgood tax will solve
anything apart from making you feel good.

Taxing farmers 36 Grand is hardly a solution to anything either.

Lexi,

I am looking forward to you actually posting a rational argument for a carbon tax rather than once again restating your position.

The single fatal flaw in the pro tax argument is that it will have no effect without a global agreement. No one has yet addressed this, preferring to avoid the issue. Until someone can show a connection between our implementing a tax and the rest of the world doing so, the tax is ineffective.

guilt will do funny[sad]..things
blind us to even hearing the acusation
[im not infuring guilt..only quoting a sim-u-lie]

the big point today seems to be our
carbon dioxide..*creation..*has hit an all time high..*

with industry producing them nice solar
and wind stuff..thats little supprising

thing is that we
collectivly...create too much
yet this tax is a blind instrument..

not targeting the big users
[in fact giving them free solar cells...
and then extra income on top via a rebate...lol

?...how many
with free solar cells
have ACTUALLY used..*less power..in total..?

its the smoking scam all over again
just like this attack on gamblers
guilt..[it works a treat]..
just like religion

if you pay for your 'indulgences'...
your not indulging...lol..guilty logic

unless your of the sort
who uses daytime power from solar...[which they arnt...!

its on 'sold'
to electTRICK companies,..
and they still feed off..the coal power]..24/7...

[or else why pay you for it...[GET IT?]

you high and mighty
holier than thou kate blank/cheques of the world
still are using coal power...!..

[if your getting
*a feedback tarrif rate..!]

see proper solar
*would need to be OFFLINE..*
need to be..storing ALL its own power[on site]

*BUT IT DONT..

[to wit..its a feel-good SCAM*]
so the big/users..get big offsets
WITHOUT REDUCING* THEIR overuse/abUSE..

ohhh soooo clever
the hide..of those
sharing collective guilt
then casting stones at smokers/or 'deniers'

talk about being in denial
lol

little wonder you want to leave
leave it for us paying for it all
replacing the infastructure..WHILE PAYING YOU TOO

SM,

You're now in favour of a global agreement? That's interesting. Go back and re-read your response to me when I posted on this very subject. You brushed it aside with, "it will make no difference to global emissions." Sorry, I'm no longer interested in continuing this discussion - and I can no longer take you seriously. However, that's allright because I understand that not everyone adheres to the same beliefs and wants the same outcomes.

Dear Yabby,

The WA Farmer Federation's support for the carbon tax is very recent. Google it for yourself to get the full story. See you on another thread.

Lexi,

Of course I am in favour of a global agreement and have said so several times. As and when this happens I will support a carbon tax / ETS. However, until then the carbon tax is effort without reward.

Also if a carbon tax is introduced, I see compensation as a money go round. I would prefer if the tax were introduced at a small rate and ramped up, with the revenues being used to build better generation.

For example, if the tax were started at $5 with no compensation, it could be sold to the public far more easily, business would have its certainty, and the money could be used to change Hazelwood to gas, and you would have 3% reduction almost immediately.

What the ALP is proposing is a complete abortion, that will damage industry, and have little to no effect on Australian emissions let alone global.

Lexi, I did google it. The WA farmers federation comment is some
months old, the new cost analysis of the downstream effects on
farmers, is only a couple of days old. So my point remains.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+government+receives+diplomatic+spanking+over+climate+policies/4921908/story.html
A very worth while link, it questions the idea put by Abbott that Australia is about to go it alone.
Other Worth while story's can be found on the front page of the paper carrying this story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
This too is a link of great interest
Shadow Minister as you have spent years saying I do not post links here are some comments.

Belly,

Even the productivity report tagged that Australia is already spending more on GHG reductions than China, the US, Canada, India, and Japan, so the carbon tax will put it far ahead.

Your links don't dispute anything I have said.

Terminological Inexactitude there mate.
I Think they rebut your oft stated view we act alone very well.
More links to come.
In telling me off for not posting them, you had it right.

Belly,

Terminological In-exactitude my backside. I never used the term, in fact the only reference in this thread is yourself.

I stated that we would be going ahead of our major trading partners and competitors. The productivity report says just that. The only thing that the report says that backs labor in any way is that a carbon tax is the most efficient method of reducing GHG in Australia. A point that I have never disputed.

My point was that the carbon tax would not be high enough to encourage any change in generation, and would reduce emissions in Australia by two means 1) efficiency gains 2) by moving carbon intensive emissions off shore. The sum of the global change in emissions would be close to zero.

This would have no effect on climate change in Australia, or make any difference for our children.