I thought I hadn't heard straight at first. Was it true that the government is applying a tax on carbon where the compensation will be worth more than the income from the tax?

I just checked the internet, and my ears were as accurate as usual. Peter Hartcher lays it out in the SMH http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/payouts-help-shield-labor-from-political-heat-20110710-1h8jv.html. (Just the first reference I got to). I was right - the carbon tax actually raises less money than the compensation package costs.

Like most of the population I think I've moved from being prepared to at least give the government the benefit of the doubt in 2007 to outright contempt.

The maths says two things to me. The first is that the government puts a negative value on its ability to sell any policy. The second is that the tax is bound to rise in the future, because no-one ever applied a tax for nothing. Quite how they claw the tax back through the ETS I'm not sure, but there must be a way.

Otherwise this is just a redistribution of income, not an environmental measure at all.

Gillard et al must think we're all mugs.

I agree Graham. I still don't see how this tax will help the environment at all, but I am willing to learn if someone else out there can explain it to me?

From what I can see, the Government will tax some 'big polluters', but not ALL big polluters, and they will then use some of the money raised by these taxes to 'compensate' us commoners for the increased prices on the goods and services provided to us by these big polluters, so they can pay the increased taxes to the Government?

Am I missing something here?

Just how will there ultimately be less carbon produced from this mad re-routing of funds?

One commentator recently reported that the outcome is likely to be a Clayton's Tax and so it is.

The reasoning in part is that people who gain under the compensation package may decide to try harder to cut their emissions thus keeping some of the largesse for other purposes. If prices rise considerably even reducing energy consumption may only mean a break-even. Will it really be a disincentive to cut emissions?

I am not convinced that a market mechanism or a carbon based economy will go far in reducing pollution (regardless of one's beliefs about AGW).

Direct action, foresight and better policies around building and planning would be preferable and more effective in reducing dependency on coal. There has not been much reported on whether direct action options were explored ie. around renewables, forestation, coal sequestration, sustainable populations and globally improving the wellbeing of developing nations with fairer and more equitable foreign/economic policies.

"Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." - Einstein

PS: The Greens managed to secure a large amount of funding for renewables so that is a positive step.

The tax is not a deal breaker for me per se as let's face it taxes come and go all the time but the level of taxation tends to hover within a static 'range' no matter what name you put to it. It is just the guff and fuzzy thinking that goes with this approach that makes it less palatable.

Where is the encouragement to reduce emissions? That is the crux of the failing in this approach unless I am missing some big piece of the puzzle.

My understanding is that the so-called compensation package is supposed to compensate pensioners and others for whom significantly reducing their emissions is not a viable option. However, if it goes beyond their actual expenditure it then becomes little more than a bribe, which I suspect will backfire on the Gillard government. Correct or otherwise, I think that voters have become cynical as to the government's integrity, and this will be seen as the last desperate gasp of a discredited government.

If the purpose of the carbon tax is to induce behavioural change - i.e. reduced non-renewable energy consumption - rather than simply income redistribution, then I agree that it's hard to see how sham 'compensation' is going to achieve that aim. The tax should have been set at a much higher level (say 40%) and fuel should have been included. For the carbon tax to succeed as a precursor to a cap and trade system, emitters need to be motivated to either reduce their emissions or trade carbon credits.

This tax has been compromised out of existence, and probably seals the government's fate.

I assume that the hope is that the extra cost on carbon emissions will reduce the price gap between fuel sources which emit lot's of carbon and those that don't. If it's increased it enough to bridge the gap remains to be seen, also I have my doubts that an industry compensation plan can actually stop the shift offshore of yet more manufacture and processing unless they are being overcompensated as well.

I can't see that business will shoulder the cost in reduced profit's. Not if they can find any way around it. That means that they pass the costs down, initially to that portion of the population who are not "fully compensated" who will no doubt raise prices to ensure that they don't carry the cost alone.

Expect a visit to the doctor or from your plumber and others to go up in price. Seems likely to be nasty inflation hit for a while, then of course the Reserve can lift interest rates to combat inflation.

If we do reduce energy consumption will suppliers be allowed to increase prices to make up for the reduced income?

R0bert

A classic case of history repeating itself.
This is the GST all over again. Any PM who tries to introduce a new tax in this country is committing political suicide. A tax on pollution is necessary and inevitable. When the coalition eventually come around to introducing their own version, you can bet it won't be as worker friendly, and this time we don't have the Democrats to mitigate it. The Greens will be howling that it doesn't do enough.
An Australian politician standing defiant against world (American) opinion?
Yeah right.
When the inevitable tax comes in, the important thing will be to ensure that the tax makes it possible for low income earners to buy (get) energy alternatives necessary to make a difference.
Question 1 in the Courier Mail poll asks:
“Will the carbon tax change your energy consumption?”
How can low income earners rush out and buy an energy efficient hot water system to replace their (ultra cheap to buy) instant hot water system? How can they rush out and buy solar panels? Should they rush out and buy an oil heater, to replace their $20 electric heater?
The rich can afford to make changes to be more energy efficient, and end up saving money in the long term.
The poor can't afford those changes, even when they know it would save them money long term.

Of course it's a redistributive measure - that's what taxes are for. The real question is to do with how the whole thing is to be funded and whether the Treasurer's bold predictions of surpluses in years to come are at all reflective of the reality in those years.

If the surpluses do not prove any more real than Gillard's "no carbon tax" promise, then will the country be forced to borrow to fund the bri...compensation? Somehow, I think we already know the answer to that...

Has anyone else noticed that personal income tax collections are significantly less than the money paid as benefits, rebates and allowances to individuals? To the tune of nearly $10 billion at the moment, I understand. Thank god for China, eh?

Grim, Howard put the GST to an election to obtain a mandate.

I have been reading about the trading of emission permits.
The following is from the appendices to the document.
Quote:
Any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically
surrendered and cannot be traded or banked for future use.

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until
the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued.
They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.
Unquote:

I understand the trading part of it, but what do they mean by "Banked" ?

Does it mean that permits can be passed into derivatives ?
As I understand it the permits given by the government for free can be
put into the trading and derivative system, but those purchased by
the "polluter" during the fixed period cannot be traded.

It appears that the appendices have reealed the purpose of the whole
scheme.

The Euro trading is at E13 at present so you would not want to buy
them at $23 and sell them for E13. You could of course do the reverse
if there is a mechanism to do so.

How much CO2 will emission trading permit derivatives save ?
No wonder Malcolm Turnbull was in favour of it, its right up his alley.

I for one am sceptical of the introduction of the carbon tax as it will financially effect all of us Australians especially the majority that can least afford it.
Labour and the Greens realized the larger percentage of the people were against it so they resorted to put in place incentives to bribe the people and guaranteed the bribe for up to 3 years but failed to guarantee it further.
Last night on pay tv I watched a panel of economists giving their opinions which had both good and bad points on the carbon tax.
The said Hazelwood coal mine in Victoria would be closed, this is at the cost of hundreds of jobs which ultimately will effect hundreds of families. Hazelwood supplies a lot of the power for Victoria.
Why was the Labour and Greens afraid to put a REFERENDUM to the People for us the people to vote?
Hazelwood will be put on the market and sold! Its not hard to guese who will buy it. One of the BIG foreign investors like China.
Our taxes and GST is going to increse to absorb the bribes so there is less impact on government coffers.
Not one of the members of the panel could fathem a guese of any guarantees after the first 3 years of the carbon next when it changes to the E.T.S.

Graham,

"I thought I hadn't heard straight at first. Was it true that the government is applying a tax on carbon where the compensation will be worth more than the income from the tax?"

This is the old bait and switch technique. The voters take the cash up front and later are stuck with rapidly increasing prices.

The modelling covers the cost per family of the carbon tax only, but conveniently neglects the cost impacts of the renewables drive, which is probably going to drive prices up nearly as much as the carbon tax.

By the time Joe public has realised he has been tricked it will be too late.

i can only agree grayhm
its like adding 10.10 cents of straw to your cammel
then telling the cammel your going to let 500 only take off 9.90 cents

[and trusting these 500 most vile poluters
to only take back 9.90]

think of it like stealing just one lolly
from the lolly shop..[times 500]

then the joke of attacking phoney tony
[for making unfunded promises]..yet as you point out

they 'promise' to pay more..
than these UNKNOWN..unnamed 500 will/can..take

if it wasnt so sad allready
alp is WILLING TO RISK..phoney tony getting back in..IN A LANDSLIDE
[after all he neds to get in to stop it..ie needs the NUMBERS
and once he has 'the numbers'..is workchoices all over again]

even worse is the bundeling of raising
the thesh-hold needing to pay wage tax
being linked to this...[we wont even kep the reform]

but we will lose the increase of rate
and we will loose this tax..[maybe]

it all hooks on the numbers
[and numbers based on modeling..lol]

just like the proof that doing it now
is cheaper..[but what if its the wriong thjing to be doing

lets face it..the models have come home to roost
the fear[beginning]..was based on modeling...just like the end..was based on modeling

if only the 3 million families...paying the 500
knew the modeling was just alp/green bling
based on a financial taxation scam
concieved by thatcher...
modeled by john howard
and was sold by juliar

there is no saying
she is doing it for the 'kids'
and bob seems likely to be childless too

its a sceme from the not never ever likely..to be mother
and the not likely..ever to be father

heck they really got nothing to risk..do they?

this INDEXED tax
will cost us our camel
[after-all its only one last straw]

this wont hurt a bit
but then the cammel bit back

Australia is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC country and in a Democracy the people rule, therefore a REFERENDUM of the people should have been held because the CARBON TAX will effect all of us.
The Labour government and the Greens refused to let the people have a say by way of a referendum because of all the polls indicated the people did not want a carbon tax.
To soften the impact of their CARBON TAX they they realied on peoples human nature and included financial benefits which are nothing short of bribery, and they put in place a guarantee for the first 3 years but would not speculate further guarantees after the first 3 years.
When ever put to them a question of the guarantees after the initial CARBON TAX of 3 years, they answered with, "it will change to an E.T.S. Emmission Trading SCHEME". I noticed they fail to guarantee any finiancial benifits after changes from a CARBON TAX to an E.T.S. So I am skeptical and in nearly all things which virtually impacts on the people financially the word SCHEME stands out.
Although Australia is fundamentaly a christian country and regardless whether your are a christian or an agnostic or an athiest or any other religion we live in a DEMOCRACY and the levels of a true DEMOCRACY are as follows;
(1) GOD or THEOCRACY where GOD rules.
(2) MAN or DEMOCRACY where People rule.
(3) PARLIAMENT or BUREAUCRACY where Officials rule
(4) CORPORATIONS where these entities rule nothing.
People are natural living flesh and blood men and women with a soul and we have the ability to make decissions for ourselves. We elect the members of our constituants to represent us in the Parliament and the Government, so we the PEOPLE rule and our elected representatives have to do what we the people want and not what they want as they are have been doing. When Parliaments and Governments overrule our inalienable DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS and FREEDOMS then we are reduced to slaves.

@GrahamY: Otherwise this is just a redistribution of income, not an environmental measure

Maybe what you might expect from Labour, given they promised to do nothing. This is about as close as they could get to keeping the promise.

The great irony for me is the Greens had a hand in authoring this. It is weaker than Rudd proposal, which the Greens shot down for being too weak. So the nett result of all the Greens manoeuvring over the past 2-3 years was more seats to them at Rudd/Labour's expense, at the cost of weaker green policies. I am sure they think it is a fair exchange. I'm a cynical bastard I know, but I swear all these politicians are the same.

Still I think you may be being a bit harsh on the "not an environmental issue". So far all carbon initiatives have been brought using a thin edge of the wedge model. The rest of the wedge will be slipped after an election cycle or two, once everyone gets comfortable with the idea that a price on carbon isn't anywhere near as painful as some make out. In the mean time, Labour using the opportunity to do some income re-distribution along the way is also entirely expected, and consistent with their traditions and voter base. Our GINI Coefficient has been meandering upward in the last few years, so I don't think it was an inappropriate thing to do.

@GrahamY: Gillard et al must think we're all mugs.

Possibly. But right now her competition is a man who says is is going to balance the budget, give us all tax cuts, and pay the polluters to reduce CO2 - all at the same time. I presume if he thought turning the seas to ginger beer would get some short term votes he would promise that too. He makes her look reasonable and thoughtful. I think Gillard is an abysmal politician, so making her look reasonable real achievement. Kudo's to Abbott for pulling it off.

I am hoping both sides have better leaders waiting in the wings.

The government is made up of a Coalition of varied political and social interests, Labor, Greens, and Independents. As Penny Wong has said in the past it is important to make the first step no matter how small to achieve any programme. Under Kevin Rudd there was no compromise and the ETS was defeated twice in the Senate by the Greens.
The government does not deny that an escalation of the carbon trading will occur after the first three years (2015). There does appear to be a cost imbalance which according to the government will be corrected in due course. Without taking this first step - nothing will ever be achieved. The government has included all the alternatives suggested by the Opposition - such as carbon sequestration, planting trees, and a variety of other measures. I'm sure that in due course the polluters will develop alternatives to off-set their expenses and alternative measures of dealing with carbon emissions will develop some more efficient than others.

Unless we take this first step - nothing will be achieved.
BTW: Watch "Q and A" this evening (Monday, 11th July 2011) - the PM will be there to answer the public concern and questions.

Let us assume the Liberals are in government. They would face the same amount of opposition and obstructionism from their opposition - Labor, Greens, and Independents. And nothing would ever be achieved. Now wouldn't it be a good idea if the politicians got together and learned to work in the interest of the nation? It would also be advisable for the voters to recognise the difficulty of any major change - and let the government do its job before making judgements on a programme that hasn't even gotten off the ground.

While there is the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia via the carbon tax, we are still going to have very rapid population growth, which will just override and cancel out any gains.

We might be able to make small average per-capita reductions but what is the likelihood of us making a national reduction? Nil!

SURELY a reduction in the immigration rate HAS to be part of any genuine carbon-pollution-reduction strategy!

Gillard has said that she is not a proponent of a big ‘Austroilya’. Well, wasn’t this carbon tax business the perfect opportunity for her to announce a significance reduction in immigration??

Lexi,

Where is the "major change?"

Our towns and cities are now designed to centralise goods and services. A car is "required" to get to almost everything. In fact, our sense of community has been compromised to such an extent that we wouldn't know where to begin in an attempt to kick-start a more eco-friendly way of living.

I don't believe, under the present paradigm, that the Australian population would be willing to alter its pattern of energy consumption without a major revision (reversion) in our community design and operation.

Dear Poirot,

We have to start somewhere. Surely you're not suggesting we don't require industry to clean up their mess just because certain members of the population are not able to change their habits or because certain members of the population don't want to change?

Lexi,

"Their mess" is our mess. Their pollution production emanates from our standard of living. I suppose it's a chicken or egg proposition. Who among us is going to take a step back consumption-wise.
As a nation, we aren't likely to sacrifice growth as our mantra and, without industry fueled by low-polluting renewables and urban design alternatives, all the taxes in the world (accompanied by compensation) aren't going to change anything unless we cut our consumption and lower our standard of living.

Ludwig,
I am reading Richard Heinberg's The End of Growth at present.
We are seeing here in Australia the early effects of growth limitation.

Other countries are already hard up against the limits.
Symptoms of this can be seen in the European problems where growth
is zero or negative, except in Germany.

The US recovery was expected to become growth but was short lived
because it was actually recovery and just getting back almost to
where it started.

Every immigrant that arrives here will reduce the product available to
each of us to some extent. As time goes on each immigrant will reduce
more and more product available to those already here.
When growth reaches zero then each immigrant will reduce the cake by
one portion.
We are just about the point where increased population will not
increase GDP.
A little further on and GDP will decrease each year.

Anyone advocating any immigration at all implies a lowering standard
of living. We need to take steps to let our population fall a little
or at least hold it steady.

On Friday I met a coalition MHR I know and I spoke to him about this
matter and its relation to peak oil.
His response was that something will turn up.
The market will respond and sort out these problems.
I asked him why world wide peak oil is a non subject to politicians
His response was that he knew about it but something will turn up.
The market will respond and sort out these problems.

This I think is the attitude of almost all politicians.
That being so we are in big trouble.

The CO2 tax will I believe make things worse as it will force
expenditure into areas that are contrary to what is required.

Dear Poirot,

I'll keep repeating - we have to start somewhere. Tony Abbott and the business lobby have had a field day, running a well-orchestrated fear campaign that has convinced many voters that the carbon tax will be bad for the economy. In fact, the level of carbon pricing the Government is adopting will have almost no long-term impact on the economy. Australia already has a number of carbon taxes. Top of the list are petrol and diesel excises, which together raked in $13.2 billion in 2010-11, accordin to the Budget papers. There's also the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which leaves a royalty on oil and gas extraction in Australian federal waters, responsible this year for $940 million.

In other words, carbon-based taxes are already bringing in more than the approx.$11.5 billion that Ross Garnaut has estimated a $26/tonne carbon tax will levy in its first year. Which rather puts some of the over-heated rhetoric about the destructive impact of a carbon tax into
perspective.

Unless big energy companies like the vastly polluting brown coal power plants of the Latrobe Valley have a cap on pulltion and a price on carbon they will have no incentive to look for alternatives or towards renewables, they will have no reason to stop polluting and we will surely struggle to achieve a 5% reduction in carbon pollution by 2020.

Dear grahamy,

Setting aside the effectiveness of the package I'm going to have to say if the Prime Minister manages to pull this off then she will certainly go up in my estimation of her which admittedly up till now has been fairly low.

This issue has cost the job of a number of party leaders.

Tony Abbott and the Opposition have run a stirling and very effective 'No' campaign. 

It has also attracted considerable hostility from some very cashed up interest groups, plus some very anti news media (anybody read the Sun-herald today) and some ferocious rightwing commentary.

And if wasn't enough some very powerful unions have been doing a pitbull number on her flank.

If this comes off with all the above against her and without a majority in either house of parliament then I am going to tip the hat.

I am getting a sense of a change in mood. Two acquaintances have said to me in the last 24 hours that people need to back off her a little, and one was a rusted on Liberal. Abbott will need to watch overplaying this.

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

It would appear that as the details of the tax were being leaked out that the public has largely already decided, and support for the carbon tax has fallen a further 3% and opposition has risen by 4% in the last few weeks.

Support for Juliar has plummeted to an all time low of 29%, and Tony Abbott is pulling further ahead as preferred prime minister. To top this off support for labor is further depressed, and the green's support is dwindling.

With industry almost universally slating this as bad policy, and Abbott blitzing the typical labor strong holds, the question is whether Juliar will survive the stress test of the next 5 weeks. I have no doubt that whilst the labor caucus is "strongly" behind Juliar in her gamble, there is a stress point at which they will pull the pin and try and regroup without either the tax or the shrew.

SM,

Don't be fooled by polls - they're only as good as the people surveyed and at the time they were surveyed. Things change in a flash.
Especially in politics. Did you see Mr Abbott on TV last night.
There was no implosion and he seemed to struggle to articulate anything more than his usual slogans. In contrast the PM looked surprisingly perky yesterday. Still she can only take it one step at a time. I'm sure that she will lock in behind the policy and explain it to doubting voters in terms that they will understand. I'm sure that she will be in a competitive position by the time the 2013 election rolls around. Intelligent observers of federal politics like Fairfax Laura Tingle seemed to have sniffed a change in the wind. Abbott's fixation on media stunts (like the ill-fated proposal to hold a carbon-tax plebiscite) and his breathtakingly threadbare policy platforms have started to make even enthusiastic Abbott supporters uncomfortable.

@Pirot: As a nation, we aren't likely to sacrifice growth as our mantra and, without industry fueled by low-polluting renewables and urban design alternatives, all the taxes in the world (accompanied by compensation) aren't going to change anything unless we cut our consumption and lower our standard of living.

Lexi has said this, but I'll put it in another way.

We aren't going to make the transition you describe overnight for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it is it physically impossible to go from where we are to low-polluting renewables instantaneously.

So it will be accomplished in little steps. Do you think a tax that does cut consumption in favour of moving towards sustainable living might be such a step? I do. The first and hardest step is admitting you have a problem. In implementing this tax, no matter how wishy-washy it might be, we have done that. It if survives the next election, then I'd imagine now we have admitted we have a problem the next step will involve doing something concrete about it.

Right now our pollies are doing an amazing job of ignoring population growth. That includes the Greens, who only have warm fuzzy motherhood statements listed on their web site as their "population policy". Hopefully the disconnect between growing your population at 1.6% per year through immigration and taxing yourself to cut total carbon emissions at the same time will become too hard to ignore.

@ rstuart:

I must say your comments over the past few days make a lot of sense, and across a range of subjects. Well done, keep it up - you're a model for the rest of us!

<< Unless we take this first step - nothing will be achieved. >>

Lexi, this is not really a first step. There have been others – the fuel excise, development of wind farms, subsidies for solar power, etc. It is more like a final step!

It was really time to gear it right up, but this carbon tax package has failed to do that.

If it was just another step on a well-formed path to renewable energy and a sustainable future, then fine. But it is not likely that further significant steps will follow. Big business won’t allow it. They’ll say that the deal is done and that’s it. And the Greens are happy with their wins for renewable energy and are not really likely to push for significant further measures, to any great extent.

And what are we going to achieve?

A 5% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020, at best. Well, whoopy-doo!

What has effectively been achieved here is a total win for the same old continuous-growth economic and business model. The government is now seen to be a bit green while at the same time effectively entrenching the ANTIGREEN, ANTISUSTAINABILITY paradigm.

The returns from ethical investments can often be insipid at best but then they are generally not why people choose to invest in such companies, it is often more a case of putting ones money where ones mouth is.

However was anyone else fortunate enough to be enjoying a 25% surge today in the share price of a certain geothermal company and a certain wave energy company?

One gets the feeling that when the Superannuation fund guys start getting interested then the landscape will change dramatically. There is just so much potential for R&d, jobs and growth in this sector, all that seems lacking are the funds. Watch this space.

Meanwhile a James Squire is called for tonight instead of the VB.

The thing that annoys be about the whole emissions thing is that we, ordinary Australians have already been consciously reducing our own personal carbon foot prints.

On the whole we think twice before driving somewhere if we don't have to, we no longer burn waste in our back yards and most of us don't cut trees down without considering the needs.

Another problem is that for any business to have to fund any increase, they need to make a return on that investment, so, if this tax adds say $2,000 to the running costs then they will most likely charge over and above their out of pockets as that's how business runs.

So that $2000 may end up being $3000 that is passed on as nobody wants to invest without making a return.

Once these increases are compounded down the line, it may have a huge effect to the bottom line price for the consumer.

Of cause the real issue is one of how will we meet the demands of the developing counties while at the same time cutting emissions

Ludwig

The modelling showed conclusively that the carbon tax and renewable program will result in the emissions increasing by 7.5% from today or 13% over 2000 figures. The 5% reduction over 2000 figures is based on buying $bns from other countries in "carbon credits".

The minor reductions in this country push emissions overseas, and do almost nothing for the globe or for the climate change in Australia.

When will you people do a bit of research on your beloved renewable energy? If you would only do a bit with an open mind you would know that there is no such thing.

There is hydro, but we can't even get that right. When we get it working we throw out half the capacity in the name of environmental flows. Then our topography on the mainland does not give much scope for much more hydro anyway.

If you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, although there is no sound reason for doing that, your only chance, in the near future is gas or nuclear, there is nothing else now, & won't be for decades.

It is a pity that global warming is not a fact. Every couple of degrees hotter would open up huge tracts of the northern hemisphere land mass for agriculture.

The only people on earth to be throwing their lot to wind are the poms, despite the fact that at the peak of their very cold last winter, their entire wind investment would not have lit a single village. Have you ever noticed that it is coldest when the skies are clear, & the atmosphere still & windless?

With the planet now rapidly cooling we had better hope that we can get hold of some of that coal to heat our homes. We won't be able to afford electric heating, even if the power is on, & the greenies would not like to see us burning wood again, to warm our homes.

In years to come in Oz, absolutely folly will be known as "doing a Gillard", long after few remember who the dill was.

<< The 5% reduction over 2000 figures is based on buying $bns from other countries in "carbon credits" >>

Yes Shadow Minister, it would appear that the goal of a 5% reduction on 2000 levels is disingenuous. There really is no way that it will happen.

In fact I fear that the carbon tax will actually work in reverse. Given the big discrepancy between the revenue created by the tax and the much larger compensation package, the difference is going to increase economic expansion, which will be achieved via expansion in mining, not least with coal, increases in exports to China, making us more dependent on that country, and the maintenance of high immigration to provide skilled workers and consequently an ever rapidly increasing number of energy users and CO2 emitters in this country.

The motivation here is all wrong. This carbon tax should have been part of a sustainability strategy, not simply a climate-change mitigation strategy.

The damn silly Greens should have driven this. They should have made sure that the achievement of a sustainable society was the primary focus of Gillard’s package.

We should have been told that the development of renewable energy sources and the winding back of fossil fuel usage is of paramount importance for much more than just climate change reasons.

We need to do this to prepare for peak oil, which could have devastating effects on our economic and social fabric in the very near future, due to rising prices long before actual shortages of supply.

And we need to stop bad growth (expansionism) and foster only the good fraction of growth, which is achieved via technological advancement, better efficiencies in resource usage, and alternative renewable energy sources.

This sort of stuff would resonate with the Australian populace a lot more than climate change if it was well-presented. And it would be much more acceptable to big business too.

This would be all about our society and our lives and the threats to them in the very near future, rather than about our tiny and rather ethereal part in the global fight against climate change, in which we would still only play a minuscule part even if we were highly successful in reducing emissions.

A golden opportunity has been missed here.

Ludwig, I agree. As I've argued here:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/hewsonasia/feed
A tax on burning fossil fuels is absolutely inevitable. The question is how best to spend that tax. So Far the discussion has been dominated by bean counters with no imagination whatsoever.
If they were fair dinkum about reducing pollution, there steps we could take that wouldn't cost anything at all, like interest free loans to make houses and businesses more energy efficient. sales tax incentives for manufacturers to produce innovative new energy saving products.
The only way pensioners and low income earners can 'do their bit' is by buying more energy efficient appliances they can't afford, or simply by going without.
Must we put up with little old ladies dying of pneumonia for the sake of the environment?

heard our pm today..talking about cutting polution
[is this anything like cutting a ffffarrrt?]
did she really mean poo/loo=tion?

indeed does she even hold
the art contained in a fart

funny how it sounds like it is.FFF ahhh[hard t]
phhh-f-art

anyhow here spin isnt cutting it
[going by the faces at qanda..last night]

so were back to the ph-art..words
that mimic what they are

are we seeing the real juliar yet?
has she gone again?

thing is it was or it wasnt..the 'real juliar'

your too clever by half juliar
using your kiddie voice..not your hard art hard t voice

i say phart because we call the nice word phlat-u-lance
or may be a flat u lance..[in b flat?]..

anyhow its going over
like a lead ballooon
smelling so bad it vacates a room
is falling phlat
whatever that means

pull the lead out red
many good people got faith in you..[we dont get why]

but your as flat as flatulance..
[avoid the use of the word cutting
your giving new meanings to the same old words

all i heard was the same old thing
on so many different venues
phew..peeuw..

who cut their poll*=lootion in here

ps nz has half price permits
ie a lower setr price..plus comparitivly lower exchange rates

seems we will be buying their permits

wasnt raising the tax threshold a clever use of spin
yes we raised the level at which you pay tax
but increased the tax you pay..AT THE LOWER LEVEL..by 3 %

high earners in affect got a tax cut
your too clever by half juliar
many are beginning to notice

so slick
it sounds like a wet ph-art

Grim, how can you expect to be taken seriously, when you throw out bland, unsupported statements like, "A tax on burning fossil fuels is absolutely inevitable."

Would you please qualify why you believe this. Is it that you believe that governments need the income to pay the the burgening number of bureaucrats? Perhaps it's the cost of the soon to hit superannuation of said bureaucrats as they retire?

Perhaps it's some misguided idea that the CO2 produced has some effect on our climate. What ever it is, your post is not much use without this clarification.

i had the unkind thought last night
[with all this rupert fox sky tv tender stuff]

i recall juliar visiting rupert in usa pre election
did she do a deal with the abc/satilite BEING..*put up for tender

heard of the uk mess..in advance via our version of the ozzie mossad
[intel]..and needed* to get another show on the road?

to wit a hasty press release on a holy day
closing parliment down..[to stop tonies opposing question's]
about the abc satilite right/tender

and save rupert
he who thinks to bring the 'fox'..propaganda
ie install a right wing.. into the mid east?

Ludwig, agree with you again.
We have no choice from now but to have a sustainability policy.
With zero growth setting in I suspect that we do not have the resources
to do a crash course on CO2.

All these ETS and carbon tax schemes are too late and are miss aimed.
Because zero growth is about here now anti co2 campaigns are irrelevant.
Our economies are about to start winding down, possibly very slowly so
panic stations will not be needed.
However if population keeps increasing whats available will have to be
spread more thinly.
What we see happening on the Kenyan/Somalia border is a view of what
is to come in coming years.

Welcome to the post peak oil world.

A low carbon future has to include sustainable population policies as others have written.

The PM talks about the Carbon Tax working as a price signal to polluters and while some industries may take steps to reduce emissions, what is the incentive though, if governments are compensating consumers to whom these costs will be passed.

A clever company might develop a low carbon policy and compete on price thus encouraging others to do the same - that might be part of the thinking on this. But will said company keep prices at the market rate to maximise profits? I still don't see the incentive except perhaps for households to cut energy use to offset higher prices. Competition policy in this country does not work well within some industries such as banking, financial services or energy.

While I understand rstuart's logic on short term vs long term strategies and maybe he is right, perhaps it is just the beginning of a slow evolving system - the tax being the impetus - to enable renewables and cleaner coal to become the norm.

“Carbon trading will become the world's largest commodities market.”
Louis Redshaw, Barclays Capital (New York Times)

Now does anybody with more than half a brain think that anybody is going to promote a moneymaking scheme where the basis of it is the alleged REDUCTION of the commodity that drives the scheme? The idea that is being sold to a gullible public is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that will eventually eradicate man-caused pollution and thus save the world. So why would anybody invest in something that is going to be wiped out in the medium to long term?

Of course not. The moneymaking aspect of any scheme relies on it continuing and growing, therefore the sponsors of this scam are really relying on two things - that the human-caused carbon dioxide emissions will continue and increase, thus increasing the profits from the scam and secondly, that the value of the carbon credits themselves will rise, just like stocks and shares, reaping huge financial rewards for those who trade in them and especially those who control the trading.
THE CARBON TAX IS A COLOSSAL SCAM

Dear pepper,

The following website might clarify a few things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/11/carbon-tax-we-had-have

It must be something that only a humanities could understand.

What ever could someone explain to me the rational of hitting us with a tax to try to force us to reduce our use of coal fired power, then continue to expand the production of that same coal, to produce cheep power for the Indians, & the Chinese.

I have no desire to prevent those 2 nations growing with cheep from our coal, but I'm damned if I can see how their CO2 is different to our CO2.

It can't be that they want the money to get us out of the debt they've run up, everyone knows they won't be around long enough to do that.

That just leaves the red queen having to pay her dues to Bob Brown, for sleeping in the lodge. Pity we all have to pay them for her.

Of course it's hypocritical, Hasbeen. That's why it's Greens policy to shut down the coal industry over time. I'm surprised you're unaware of that policy.

Dear Hasbeen,

Did you watch "Q and A" last night?

We finally have a leader that we can all be proud of.

As for Mr Abbott - he's still running around trying to
"bribe" Labor politicians to vote against the
Carbon Tax. Much the same as he tried to bribe (beg, plead)
the Independents to support him for Prime Minister after
the last election. Poor man - he'll do anything to be PM.
Except come up with more than threadbare policies.
If he would have succeeded at the last election - of course
it would be him having to deal with the Greens and the
Independents - I wonder would he then still be against
the so called "Big" carbon tax. Except that now it's not the
Armagedon that he promised, the sky won't be falling in,
and it will be passed in Parliament. Perhaps someone should
tell him that. He doesn't seem to realize so many things in
his quest to be PM - no matter at what cost.

Lexi, you're a librarian - Can you find the piece where Tony Abbott said he would say whatever it takes to become PM - or something similar?

I don't know how you all do it.
I haven't watched either of our two scintillating leaders for quite a while...I really can't stomach it. It's enough to glean smatterings on OLO and an occasional glance at the ABC website.

I take my hat off to all of you - my internal cringe-factor is obviously over-sensitive.:)

Dear bonmot,

The following two websites may be of interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/abbott-fires-1-billion-blank-20100902-14rnq.html

And

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-digs-himself-a-hole-20100902-14rjp.html

Dear Poirot,

I know what you mean, both have been a real turnoff particularly over the last six months, even with them high on my ignore list I would have said Abbott had the edge.

Something has turned and caught a few unawares. The PM's performance on Q&A was an indication that Abbott isn't going to get the cakewalk I thought he might. It certainly appears she has impressed Lexi and quite a few others. 

I would contend the ferocity of the attacks on her and the carbon tax had dropped the expectations of her post announcement performance. As most would agree, while it is still early days, she is certainly exceeding those admittedly low expectations. Abbott is struggling right now, he is astute enough to recognize the change in sentiment but is sticking with the bombast for the moment. "I am staking what is left of my entire political career on getting rid of this tax. Where is a Turnbull when you need one? 

Hockey is doing them few favors throwing in the mining tax at every opportunity and talking about it's effect on 'working families'. Gina Rienhart and Twiggy just don't fit the image. Don't pollute the message Joe!

Dear Poirot,

This joke may lighten things up a bit:

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are sitting next to each other on a flight from Sydney to Canberra. Tony leans over to Julia and asks if she would like to play a game. Julia just wants to take a nap, so she politely declines and turns towards the window to catch a few winks.

Tony persists and says that the game is really easy and a lot of fun.
He explains, "I ask you a question, and if you don't know the answer, you pay me $5, and visa-versa." Again, Julia politely declines and tries to get some sleep.

Tony, now somewhat agitated, says, "Okay, if you don't know the answer you pay me $5, and if I don't know the answer I will pay you
$50!"

This catches Julia's attention. She also knows from her experiences with Tony in Parliament that there will be no end to this torment unless she plays. So Julia agrees to the game.

Tony asks the first question. "How much is the GST on a loaf of bread?" Julia doesn't say a word, reaches into her wallet, pulls out
$5 and hands it to Tony.

Now it's Julia's turn. She asks Tony, "What hops, carries its young
in its pouch and flies?"

Tony looks at Julia with a puzzled frown. He takes out his laptop computer and searches all his references. He taps into the air phone with his modem and searches the internet and the National Library.
Frustrated, he sends emails to all his pals in the Liberal Party and finally people in the One Nation party. All to no avail.

After over an hour, he wakes up Julia and hands her $50. Julia politely takes the $50 and turns away to get back to sleep.

Tony, who is more than a little miffed, wakes Julia again and asks,
"Well, so what IS the answer?" Without a word, Julia Gillard reaches into her wallet, hands Tony Abbott $5, and goes back to sleep.

Thanks csteele and Lexi,

Perhaps I should try and take more of an interest - I used to be quite a political animal but somewhere along the line of late that area of interest seems to be in lock-down.
I seem to have an aversion to Julia, and the Labor Party at the last election was almost indistinguishable from the Libs....however, Tony Abbott is really a second rate pollie and the fact that he is leader of the opposition is bewildering imo.

Lexi, surely you're not talking about that woman who is prepared to break a promise made to buy the middle of the road voters vote, just to get into the lodge, as someone we can be proud of. She is a disgrace

Poirot I can't stand those dreadful ABC Labor party promotion arm things either. I used to watch nothing but the ABC, but when they could even convert Quantum to a Labor political announcement, I found nothing left worth watching. I don't think your cringe factor is over developed, it appears that a very large percentage of Ozzies find her very cringe worthy.

I almost threw up last night, when she came on my TV, uninvited or announced, on what should have been normal news & was on every channel I switched to to get rid of her. She makes me sick, & ashamed.

Sorry Morgan, I almost forgot you.

Yes I'm well aware you want to shut down the coal industry. Fuzzy thinking as usual. If you join a one world government, do you really think that the rest of the world will let you tie up such a valuable resource? Yes in fact you probably do, you have trouble putting 2 & 2 together after all.

Even if we try to retain our sovereignty, after Obama destroys the USA, you must be mad to think that a couple of very big players are going to go short of the coal, or gas they want, just so some misguided twits in Oz can have a warm fuzzy feeling.

Oh, if you have a moment, would you drop around & tell my Hibiscus about global warming. Please tell them they have not just experienced the coldest few days in their 18 years, & that a hundred or so of them need not die.

While you're at it, my neighbour looks like loosing at least as many of his 26 year old mango trees. Hang on, one of your clowns recently said it would be colder with global warming.

You lot are almost as credible as Julia.

@ Hasbeen:

I know that you're just trolling because it must be getting harder and harder to maintain your AGW denialism, but you're making even less sense than usual. You tried to get some mileage out of Gillard's hypocritical policy of reducing the domestic use of coal, while continuing to push the coal export industry. I pointed out that it is already Greens policy to phase out coal exports.

Now you're back to equating weather with climate. You're no dummy, so what do you achieve by spouting rubbish that you must know by now to be incorrect? Surely your ego isn't that fragile that you can't admit when you're wrong, and then move on.

Thanks Lexi, good to start the day with a chuckle.

Your link did bring back memories but no, that wasn't where Tony Abbott said he would say anything to be PM (although one could be forgiven for thinking so).

Had a quick look this morning and came up with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

I laughed a bit, but had a bigger laugh over this

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2784702.html

It also contains a link to the one above.

Its true, Abbott is about winning government no matter what. And I mean no matter; no costed policies, no vision for the future, nothing.... sorry they will offer another Work Choices - but change the name to fool us all - again.

Dear Hasbeen,

Stop repeating the Liberal mantra. Think for yourself. The PM has not broken any promises - circumstances have changed, she is in a Coalition government with the Greens and the Independents. Tony Abbott would have had to do the same thing - compromise - had he won their support. He didn't He lost. Get over it. And this package on offer is a fair one by anybody's standards. If you threw up on seeing our PM on TV last night - then you must be in a constant state of
illness because the flip flops of the Libs, the lies, the spin, the deceit since the Howard era (children overboard affair), the secrecy,
must really make a compassionate man such as yourself quite ill.

Dear bonmot,

I loved your two links - especially the "One Act Play," from the Drum.
I'm going to send it to all of my family and friends. Thanks again.

Lexi,

The changed circumstances is her excuse for breaking her promise. Irrespective of the reasons, her word was broken. She had a choice and she chose to concede to the greens at the expense of her credibility.

This and the BER incompetence will haunt her for years. I cannot see labor letting her lead the party to the next election, as any promise she makes will be subject to "how can we believe you? You lied last time!"

In all fairness, SM, Howard managed to tell some great big lies and get away with it. Of course, he was leading Australia in a boom created by Keating/Hawke, but still...

Lexi "The PM has not broken any promises - circumstances have changed"

If that's the standard then who's word could ever be believed on anything. A change of circumstances is highly subjective. Her words were clear enough, if she can't lead the government and keep her word on the plain meaning then it should go back to the electorate.

Bligh did the same thing, denied plans to drop fuel subsidies in Qld in the lead up to the election (and from memory sell off assets) and cried change of circumstance shortly after the election. Apparently neither she nor the treasurer were aware of the GFC in the lead up to the election although it had been around for some time.

I think that a change of circumstance should only ever be a legit excuse to implement major policy that was not part of an election package if their is genuine bi-partisan support for that change, something Howard did not have for work choices and Gillard does not have for the carbon tax.

A change of circumstance might require compromise on the fine detail (GST exemptions on some products) or an inability to deliver at all but it should never involve going ahead with what you have said you won't do without the consent of those you made the commitment to.

And yes Howard did change his mind about the GST but he took that change of mind to the electorate before implementing it.

R0bert

Tony Abbott doesn't tell lies - he just changes his mind.

hahahahahahahahahaha

Dear RObert,

Howard didn't have a mandate for WorkChoices.

@R0bert: Her words were clear enough, if she can't lead the government and keep her word on the plain meaning then it should go back to the electorate.

Seeing that coming from most people R0bert I'd just let it go by, but I have more respect for you.

When Gillard made her promise I presume she had done her home work and ensured the her party was willing to go through with it. And the converse is also true: if we elected Labor, we would have have every right to expect Gillard and Labor to keep their promise.

The problem is we didn't hold up our end of the bargin. We didn't put Gillard into power. Instead we elected something that is neither fish not fowl, that Gillard happens to be part of. You can't blame her for not foreseeing this. No one foresaw it.

And you don't have to take my word for it: just ask Tony Abbott. He makes the point over and over again that Gillard isn't running the country. And he is right. But the fact that he is right means he is wrong on in claiming the government we elected is breaking it's promise. That promise was given by Labor. We didn't elect Labor.

Lexy, I thought you were more clear thinking than that.

You could say Gillard conned, or lied her way into the lodge, but you could never say she "won", when she had to con a very large part of the electorate to get their vote. Without the promise to not introduce a carbon tax, she would have lost.

The only things that have changed since the election is a great increase of evidence that refutes the whole global warming theory, & a continued, & accelerating, cooling of the planet.

Perhaps you have been busy watching what is going on in Canberra, & have not noticed the unprecedented behaviour of the sun, unprecedented at least to our knowledge. It would appear our understanding of the physics of stars, is even less complete than our understanding of earths climate, & in fact much more important, for our future

I saw work choices as just as big a mistake for Oz as you do, but if you are honest you will admit one major difference.

Howard did not have a mandate for work choices, but he had not promised not to do it.

Julia has a mandate "NOT" to introduce a carbon dioxide tax, & promised not to do it.

Any one who can not see that difference is not being honest with themselves.

Lexi,

You claim that Howard did not have a mandate for work choices.

Given that he went to the election clearly intending IR reform, your claim is a little weak.

Perhaps you could justify this?

Well it's clear that Tony Abbott is the soul of consistency : )

Just ask Malcolm Turnbull.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-13/malcolm-turnbull-climate-change-policy-2793604

rstuart, the stuff that I've seen from Julia on the topic seems to be that she is claiming that she is not being forced into it. Whilst I don't necessarily believe her that's not really the issue.

If she can't stick to such clear commitments then she should say so and let the voters have another go at it. She might have had a better chance at the an outright win by showing that power was less important than integrity.

Lexi I already made that point. I don't recall Howard denying that he would try and reform industrial relations either (does not make it Ok just a different thing to saying you won't).

My position is pretty clear, no major policy initiatives which were not part of announced policy during the preceding election without bi-partisan support. If it's considered crucial then back to the people. It may result in some extra elections but I suspect that parties would quickly learn what was worth it and what was not worth it.

R0bert

@R0bert: If she can't stick to such clear commitments then she should say so and let the voters have another go at it.

If you can show me where she said would not support a carbon tax, I'll agree with you because in effect she promised not to vote for it. But if all you can show is her saying she would not implement a carbon tax if elected than all bets are off. We didn't elect her.

To me there is a big difference between between a party promising that under no circumstances they will support a policy, and them saying they won't do it, but they won't actively undermine it either. I don't ever recall getting the impression that if the greens got elected and tried to implement a carbon tax, Labor would go out of its way to undermine it. Did you?

By the way Abbott has made a lot of promises now. He has said he will repeal the mining tax, destroy the NBN, get rid of carbon tax, and give everybody tax cuts, and keep the budget in balance at the same time. Unlike Gillard's no carbon tax promise these are very definite, solid promises. I don't think it is possible keep them. Will you be holding him to the same standard if he is elected?

"without bi-partisan support..." RObert?
According to dictionary.com, Bipartisan is defined as:
"representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions"
It seems as you yourself admit, not only did Gillard have the support of more than 2 factions -Greens and independents- but it was they who pretty much forced her into it