EU is in deep trouble.

US stocks have tumbled, their Job market is shaky.

Our stocks look grim, especially our miners, the life blood of our nation.

Another pay rise, just because times are tough, but appanently we are souring with less than 5% unemployment, which should mean there is no need for the rise, as anyone who wants a job, has one. Yea, right, pull the other one I say.

So, do you think labor are getting the message, that now is not the time to impose this huge tax on carbon, or a huge tax on our nations back bone.

I doubt it, but I remain optimistic.

What's happening to shares has nothing whatever to do with these taxes and everything to do with Europe and the US.
As for mining being our life blood, I think leeches would be a better analogy.
I say take away the miners's tax break on deisel.
If they don'like it, then let them go to another country.
Oh, wait, there is no country with as safe an operating environment or as low a tax regime as Australia.
I note that BP is selling its highly profitable mining operation in Russia.
Why? Because the environment has become so lawless.
Australia is still, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, the best, most profitable mining investment in the world.
Sadly that's truebecause the miners here get to screw we ordinary Australians out of our fair share
If the current crop of mining leeches, e.g. Rinehart and palmer refuse to play there are hundreds of investors ready in the wings with money to buy their mines.
So the can piss off and good riddance to them.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< So, do you think labor are getting the message, that now is not the time to impose this huge tax on carbon, or a huge tax on our nations back bone. >>

So when might be the right time for our government to take some tiny tentative steps towards weaning us off of our addiction to oil and starting on the long road towards a largely renewable energy regime and a sustainable society?

Or is this of no concern to you?

Rehctub, the trouble with those who are vehemently opposed to the carbon tax is that they are also vehemently opposed to anything that will change our mad rush towards the cliff. It is just one huge business-as-usual she’ll-be-right attitude with just no thought of what we are heading into.

If you really want this country to have a healthy future, say yes to a carbon tax, yes to much better returns from our mineral resources and no to high immigration, just for starters.

Ludwig,

I would be quite happy to pay an extra 10 % on my electricity bill IF it all went to rigorous research into carbon-capture technology AND was matched by an equivalent amount of electricity companies' income.

IF the bulk of the carbon taxes collected were directed in this way, I wouldn't object. But I don't see the point of collecting a tax from companies, allowing them to jack up the cost of electricity, giving the tax back to consumers, and creating yet another bureaucracy in the process.

Joe

The stock market gets the jitters and the country feels the effects.
What is going on in Europe, we have no control over.
Why should what is going on there effect us.
There is something not right about this stock market business. Because of the sentiments of investors, a company sinks or swims, without any input from the company.
There has to be some-sort of isolation required.
What this has to do with carbon tax, or ALP is far fetched.
The minimun wages needs to be upgraded from time to time, as living costs rise. Butch wants a slave trading scheme.

Fair enough Joe.

I’m all for ideas and debate on how we can make the carbon tax work more efficiently.

But I am totally opposed to the view that we shouldn’t have any form of carbon tax and no efforts to change our energy regime and that it is ok to continue with the same old business as usual methodology and maximised expansionism with no end in sight!

For all the shortcomings of the carbon tax, and there are a swathe of them, it is still a million times better than doing nothing.

Ludwig - I fully agree.

Loudmouth.
If a company reduces its carbon footprint, it pays less carbon tax, - an incentive to do hard yards towards avoiding the disaster that will occur if global temperatures aren't brought under control.
If you or I reduce reduce our power usage/costs, we still keep the rebate - i.e. we don't give it back to the government.
So, there is still an incentive for us to reduce our energy footprints, but we have some buffer against rising costs.
Also, keep in mind that in a few years - I think it's 2015/16, the carbon tax moves to a carbon trading system.
Already there are many SME's developing businesses selling carbon credits.
I am currently helping one such with its strategic planning.
This company is working on growing bamboo, (which is much more effective at converting CO2 to O2 than trees, but will grow in marginal soil), to sell the offsets.
This company will create jobs, (not many but some), and will help farmers to turn currently more or less useless land into a revenue generator.
My point is that there is a fair amount of logic behind the carbon tax/trading scheme.
But first people have to accept that:
1. Scientists (mostly) are not stupid;
2. Scientists are not engaged in some vast conspiracy to fund their research;
3. That no credible scientist or scientific body doubts that the world is warming;
4. That there are only two countries where climate science is seriously questioned, the USA and Australia.

I have just returned from five weeks in Europe and I can say that nowhere did I encounter any debate about global warming. There, everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions.
Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football.
Co-incidence? I don't think so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< … everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions. Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football. >>

Very interesting Anthony.

Anthonyve,

<< … everywhere I visited, the science is accepted, and they are getting on with finding solutions. Only Australia and the USA - and in both those countries Right Wing politicians (Republicans in the US and the Coalition here) have made it a political football. >>

Of course, there are no right wing political parties in Europe ...

And, how's that going for them in Europe at the moment?

Ludwig please explain why we should reduce our use of oil.

From my reading on the subject I find that anyone who has kept up with the latest research could not possibly believe the global temperature is going to be effected in any material way by the mild increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Even the rabid warmists admit that their predictions require a very strong positive feed back from an increase in water vapour to have more than a minor effect.

All recent findings have been that this feed back is actually negative. How much longer are you, & people like you & Anthoyve going to hold on to a failed theory, without demanding some physical, as distinct from computer modeled, evidence?

Russian scientists are predicting global cooling, as are many Japanese, so perhaps we do still have an obvious spilt. Those needing grants do appear to be the only ones pushing AGW, despite Ant's assertions.

Of course the Chinese are simply laughing at the idiots in the west, as they grow rich on our stupidity.

I really would like you to give me the evidence, as you see it, so I can evaluate it, & what you are saying.

Bamboo, sounds good, just watch out for the root system's.
Europe are doing it tough, doesn't mean projects come to a standstill.
Say 20% unemployment, means 80$ still working.
No doubt modifications will be made on the carbon tax as it goes along.
The major fact is it will begin.
Climate change, global warming, what ever you call it, cannot be denied.
To reduce emitting co2 now voluntarily, is better than reducing emitting, co2 compulsorily.

Anthonyve,

From your earlier post – Australia is far from being the most profitable country for resources development. In fact, it is a very expensive place to develop and run mines – high labour costs, high costs of consumables and services, a raft of direct and indirect taxes and of course, the requirement to pay royalties to the state governments. The underlying cost of production for minerals industry in Australia is frightening and many projects are only viable at the moment due to elevated commodity prices. When they fall, and they will, you will see a significant number of mines close. (You will get your wish).

On the flipside, the Australian community derives benefits from all these items – directly and indirectly.

You say that “the miners here get to screw we ordinary Australians out of our fair share”. How is that? The states have a constitutional right to impose royalties which they do – this is the “purchase” from the people of Australia for the right to extract minerals. In WA (and I assume in other states without checking), the royalties are levied on the sales revenue of the minerals (less a small deduction allowable for transport costs only) so the royalties are automatically indexed on sale prices. WA collected $4.9 billion in royalties last year.

Miners do not begrudge these payments – it is simply another input cost to be assessed against the feasibility of the project.

(continued ...)

Anthonyve ... continued

You may think that the mining tax will provide a mechanism to stop those evil mining companies from denying the people their fair share.

What I have trouble with is the recent initiative of the federal mining tax, on several levels:
(1) It can be seen as non-constitutional to target a single industry given the states’ rights to levy royalties on mineral extraction
(2) It is based on cherry-picking one of many tax reforms from the Henry Report
(3) The Henry analysis & recommendation of the original 40% rate is so simplistic and naive that it beggars belief
(4) The modified tax arrangement was brokered with the representatives of three major resource houses who's business is largely in iron ore & coal (the subject of the tax). I hardly expect that this was a act of unilateral altruism and suspect that the conditions will be such that these companies will pay very little of the tax anyway.
(5) The current government is counting on the revenue from the mining tax in its forward projections – a relatively small drop in commodity prices will see the receipts vanish and there will be (another) big hole in the books

The other problem is that this punitive tax has irreparably damaged the sovereign risk for investors in Australian resource projects. I was speaking with a senior Chinese mining executive about six months ago and he basically said that he cannot recommend investment in Australia for this very reason. (This will also probably make you happy).

Hi 579,
Yeah, the roots are a concern.
Also getting out of the controlled area.
The plan is to use an asexual, clumping bamboo with manual prpogation.
It's a bit more labor intensive at the start, but much easier to control.

Peter Mac,
The Right Wing politicians in Europe fully accept that global warming is real.
Also, the are twenty something countries in the E U, but we only hear about the one's in trouble.

Hasbeen,
Regarding the Chinese, although they have huge polution problems, they are doing more to combat global warming that any other country on earth.
Yes, they are opening many new coal fired power stations, but they know they have to to sustain their population.
But they're also working hard at developing alternative energy sources.
Sure, they'll laugh at the west, when they own the technologies of the future because we were too stupid to develop green economies.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,

I also would like to address your suggestion to “take away the miners's tax break on deisel.”

This is not a tax break but an exemption from payment of the fuel excise levied on the sale of diesel fuel. The excise is imposed to raise funds for the development of roads and other infrastructure for vehicles. The exemption from this excise is for primary producers (miners and farmers mostly) and only applies for fuel used off public roads – simply put, if you don’t use the roads, you don’t pay the excise. For miners, it is mostly applicable to fuel used for power generation in remote areas and for mining equipment. Any fuel used in association with public roads (eg. transport of mineral to port) is not subject to this exemption.

Anyway, the carbon tax package has answered your wish partially - the excise rebate will be reduced by 6c/litre next month.

You may also be interested to know that the federal funding for roads is only about half of the excise collected – this again has translated into another “general revenue” item that is funded by all road users directly at the bowser and indirectly through purchase of goods.

You views reflect the narrow-minded cash grab of the current federal government. There is seemingly little logic applied to this.

rehctub

I doubt whether a Government who has been consistently humilated by their own lies and actions would be capable of a little humility in swallowing their pride and changing direction. The amount of money spent on the gw farce as the hypocrites travel the globe preaching their false gospel could of solved much of our pollution and poverty problems by now. The deceit of the carbon tax is certainly the most annoying and an embarassment to any thinking person. Beside the usual Labour lovers on OLO it is hard to find someone who admits they voted for this mob.

Ludwig, I'm not so much opposed to a tax on carbon, rathe, the way it's being implemented.

An EST would be much better, as plouters have to buy credits, before they can pollute.

This carbon tax is simp,y a license to pollute, so,long a one pays the tax.

Over all though, I don't supper any such tax, as it's the demand from consumers that causes carbon, so why reward them.

Anton, we are so heavily dependent on China, that if they sneeze, we will have a heart attack.

Given that the US and EU are their largest importers of goods, goods that feed our demands for resources, yes, I do think it effects us.

For those who think the mining tax is fair.

Imagine this scenario, you go to the bank and borrow $200,000 to start your own business. You are extracting gravel from your private property.

you go to your advisers, they assess your business plan, taking not account your input costs and a margin for unknowns.

All sounds good, the bank gives you the tick.

So, you start your business and it's pretty good.

You start paying tax on $250,000 per year life's great!

Then, the government says, by the way, we are changing the rules, so you can now keep $24,000 per year, after tax (12% return on investment), then after you pay your 30cents in the dollar tax, we want 40% of what's left.

So, what's the difference in Your business, to mining.

That's why it's wrong. You can't shift the goal posts mid stream and expect investors to wear it.

But the point of the thread, is, is this the right time to introduce these huge reforms, given the global turmoil.

Remember, the reserve bank is even warning we are in for tough times, with some suggesting interest rates may fall to 3%.

Doesn't that tell the government something.

Finally, where to if the plan fails?

Any suggestions from the brains trust?

Rechtub good win to your Broncos, rode them hard.
But sorry you know about a tenth as much as you think you know about carbon tax.
In time, within ten years, looking back at Abbott's frenzy, half truths, lies with deliberate forethought.
Henny Penny on steroids stuff.
I can hear such as you now, *we never fell for it*
Not much more than 100 years ago, we did not pump oil by the millions of barrels, had 2 billion humans, now we near 7 billion.
We must stop consuming faster than nature can renew.

Rechtub,
Here's where your analogy breaks down.
If you bought land, you would own the gravel.
But minerals, via the states, are the property of the Australian people.
And I for one do not see why we should let freeloaders like rinehart and palmer, backed by investors in other countries, rip our common wealth from theground, become absurdly rich, all the while crying poor and demanding that the tax payer help them rape us.
And when an attempt is made to tax their SUPER profits, that harridon rinehart is on the back of a truck screaming.
Maybe, we should nationalise all mines in Australia, and have the Australian government pay competent mining managers to run the mines on behalf of all Australians.
Hmm, that's not a bad idea now I come to reflect on it.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve,

You fail to realise that in-situ minerals nave no inherent value; to anyone. The value is only realised when the minerals are extracted, processed and sold.

Good luck with your nationalisation plans. Do you propose that the government buys the assets (not the minerals but the processing plants, infrastructure and equipment) or just simply steals it all? Governments can't seem to find enough money to build roads by themselves so how they could provide the initial and ongoing finance for mining eludes me. Besides, they wouldn’t have anyone left to tax!

In the UK, they nationalised the coal mining industry and formed the National Coal Board. The acronym NCB came to stand for "No Cxxx Bothers" by those who worked there. Sounds like a great model. How did that go for them?

Peter,
First of all, minerals in the ground have value, just as money in a safe has value.
You take it out and you convert it into goods and services.
As for nationalsing, well, yeah, that was tongue in cheek.
But what a threat to use to bring greedy miners to heel
I'm always fascinated by the passion some folk will demonstrate in defending the rights of others to get rich at their expense.
Makes little sense to me.
I save my passion for projects that result in social justice, where all get their, what's the phrase I'm looking for? Oh, right 'fair share'.
And every Australian has a right to a fair share in our mineral wealth.
Including miners, but in their case not obscene wealth.
And they should damned well quit their endless whining and pay fair taxes, just like you and me.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anton, minerals may well have value, bu only to the right person.

You can have hundreds of billions worth of Minerals on yourland, however, without the billions of investment dollars, they are worthless, as the cost of mining them is cost prohibitive.

Now had these miners been told that IF they find something we are going to tax you, would they have bothered.

You can't shift the goal posts mid stream.

If you wish to share in the spoils, share in the risks as well. It's called buying shares.

We are being paid for our minerals in royalties, now if this is set wrong, then fix it, but please don't make out that these miners are cheating us of taxes, because they are not.

In fact, they are generating huge taxes, much of which may be placed at risk.

You lot just don't get it.

<< Ludwig please explain why we should reduce our use of oil. >>

Aww Haz do I have to?

It’ll be about the thousandth time I’ve done so on OLO!

Your whole focus is on climate change. Well, as I have implored you to do numerous times and to which you don’t respond; concentrate on peak oil instead. We have to do essentially the same sort of things for that as we do for climate change, and it is in all likelihood a whole lot more urgent.

We’ve got to wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil regardless of whether AGW is real or not.

That doesn’t mean getting off of oil, it means drawing a fair portion of our energy requirements from renewable sources so that it is easier to move much more towards them when the price of oil becomes prohibitive.

<< I really would like you to give me the evidence, as you see it, so I can evaluate it, & what you are saying >>

You refer to evidence for AGW. But as I say, this is really beside the point.

I’m not going to give you any evidence. I’m a climate change sceptic, not a ‘warmist’. But as I keep saying, if we are not sure, we should definitely be erring on the side of caution and planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions just as strongly as if we were totally sure about it.

Only the complete denialists should be poo-pooing the precautionary principle. But then, no one can be a real denialist because no one can realistically assert that AGW is completely false.

continued

But I digress, because climate change should not be the main concern with the carbon tax.

Our utter addiction to oil, our enormous dependence on it for everything, to the extent that our society would just collapse in a heap if supplies were considerably reduced or prices considerably hiked, the ever-increasing demand for oil and hence increasing consumption rate and the non-increasing supply capability, the progressively higher price of oil, and the prospect of the big powerful nations muscling the supplier nations to give them more oil and thus reduce or cut out supplies to smaller nations like us when it comes to the crunch.

THIS is what it is all about… or should be.

So, I would be in favour of a carbon tax that concentrated on oil to start with and then moved into disincentives for coal and gas at a later stage.

I would add another point to Ludwig's well argued case.
We need to cut our dependence on oil for energy/transport as we approach peak oil, because we need oil to make plastic.
Finding an alterative to fuel oil is reasonably doable and we need to do it asap.
Finding an alternative to plastic any time soon is a much more difficult problem.
And if we look around and imagine a world without plastic, well, we would be without a vast number of things we take for granted today.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Rechtub,
Here's where your analogy breaks down.
If you bought land, you would own the gravel.

Anton, if that's your comeback, let's say I lease the land, from the government.

....Maybe, we should nationalise all mines in Australia, and have the Australian government pay competent mining managers to run the mines on behalf of all Australians.

Now you are dreaming.

They couldn't even organize a scheme to put insulation into houses, whereby they were simply the administrators.

Yea, pull the other one.

The fact of the matter that around 60% of the people don't support the carbon tax, yet this government, fearing another back flip, is pushing on regardless.

The timing is simply wrong.

I think even they know it, but can't bring themselves to admit it.

Of cause they will wake up come July 2 and tell us that the world didn't cave in after all.

Of cause it won't, but, the cost of this tax will take some time to surface as nobody knows just what the impact is going to be.

Yet another example of the uncertainty this government has created for the business community.

See you lot think that if a business is hit with an increase,it will simply pass it on.

Business does not work that way.

Say your total costs are $1 mill and the tax adds ten thousand.

That's a 10% increase.

So in order to keep your profit margins balanced, you have to increase your price by 10%.

So the ten thousand that went in is charged at more like eleven thousand.

Now multiply this by billions, and there's your impact.

You see this government expects businesses to wear this tax as a cost recovery basis, but business dent work that way.

There's your hole in the governments policy.

Like it or not, this tax will hurt.

<< WA collected $4.9 billion in royalties last year >>

Peter Mac, could you possibly put this into context by telling us how much mining companies made in WA last year?

Do you know what the total mineral wealth generated there last year was, so that we can get an idea of just what percentage is actually being returned to the WA people. Or I should say; the Australian people, as it should be evenly distributed across the country and certainly not hogged in WA.

By royalties, do you mean all government charges including taxes?

Is this $4.9 billion figure the WA government’s winnings or those of the state and federal government or just the feds or does it include royalties to indigenous groups and perhaps other non-government bodies?

Could you possibly tell me what percentage of WA's or Australia's income this is?

Thanks.

<< The timing is simply wrong. >>

Rehctub, when would it be the right time to introduce a carbon tax or ETS or whatever it takes to really get the ball rolling away from oil?

Isn’t it simply a matter of the longer we leave it, the more urgently we’ll need to do it, and at a bigger scale which will have a bigger impact on businesses?

Miners don't have any trouble finding investment money, 500 billion worth of it.
The mrrt is well and truly justified, and worked out with the aid of miners.
Nationalization of all mines is an option. Gina has enough money.
Screw the miners, they are rapists.

Here's another reason why we should pursue a low carbon future and why creating an environment where investment in alternative energy technologies is important.
I hear often how Australia has hundreds of years worth of coal and how our economy depends on it.
But demand and price for a product aren't set by the producer; it's set by the market.
To look at just one competitor, in 2010 the cost of photovoltaic cells fell by around 30%.
In 2011, the cost fell by another 40%.
If we put all our eggs in the coal basket and alternative clean cheap technologies continue to reduce in price as they are, then within a few years, we'll have heaps of coal but no customers.
Remember the lesson of the buggy whip industry at the end of the Nineteenth Century.
Look at Borders and ebooks in the Twenty First Century.
New technologies can grab market share faster than we often think.
I would argue that it's a risk no responsible government can take.
Also, it's a reason to ensure that Australians get their fair share of the wealth being generated by coal while it's still worth something.
All of which is a good reason to ignore the Rechtubs of this world.
I suspect that he's not all that wealthy, yet he seems willing to fight tooth and nail to protect those like rinehart and palmer who are immensely wealthy who are doing all they can to screw Australians out of taxes they should be paying and jobs they should be providing.
And if rinehart had her way she would destroy part of our land with a nuclear bomb just so she could get richer quicker.
Go figure!
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I wonder if the dreamers, yes you too Anthonyve, will ever wake up that there is no viable low carbon technology as yet in existence. When it comes it will be because some smart company can make it's fortune out of it, not send us broke with required subsidies.

Solar cells are a joke where real power is concerned. Even Germany has woken up, & is reducing the huge subsidies given to them. Yes they have got cheaper. That was the sell off of stock as all the free world manufacturers went broke trying to make them. Even half a billion of US tax payers dollars, handed out by that fool dreamer Obama, could not keep just one company afloat.

Spain was Obama's dream economy, leading the world in alternative industries. Well I guess you may want to inflict Spain's woes on us, but, we're not falling for it mate. Having watched Spain spend billions on generating "Green" jobs, only to find each green job destroyed 2.2 real jobs, we have no desire to join Spain in bankruptcy.

Even the poms have woken up, & will stop covering the country with those fool windmills, thanks to a revolt by their back bench MPs.

The only people to have done well from wind are the Swedes. They get the wind power free from the Danes, who can't control it to put into their grid, & use it to pump water up hill. They then let the water run down hill, generating controlled power that they can feed into their grid.

I really hate how a belief in something can make intelligent people ignore all the facts.

I have this vision of Hasbeen - one last, lonely soul, standing alone, shouting at a green, energy efficient world, "It'll never woooorrrrrkkkk!!"
Meanwhile, the rest of us will be enjoying the myriad benefits that are - as we speak, er, write, being derived from green solutions, cost efficiently implemented and working well.
But don't give it up, Hasbeen. You will always have a valuable place - somewhere in a museum beside the leg bone of a dinosaur, an additional example of Evolution's occasional diversion down a blind alley.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< But don't give it up, Hasbeen. You will always have a valuable place - somewhere in a museum beside the leg bone of a dinosaur, an additional example of Evolution's occasional diversion down a blind alley. >>

Mwaa haaaahahahaaa!!

.

Hasbeen, I don’t get it; you are apparently just so totally against any attempts to engender a greener and more sustainable future and an arch advocate for business-as-usual, including a continuation of the massive expansion of mining, and the continuous expansion of all economic activity, but you agree with me about the need to reduce population growth.

Well, if you are not interested in a sustainable future, then what’s your motivation for reducing pop growth?

Nice try Ludwig, but you know full well I support a ETS in favor of a permit to pollute, which is essentially what the carbon tax is.

At least if big business has to pay for credits, they may see the need to cut back.

But, nobody seems to recognize that polluters are only polluting to feed our demands.

Ludwig I am totally against bull sh1t. Peak oil is bull sh1t, as is the plastic story from Ant'y.

We have enough hydrocarbon fuel for hundreds of years. There is no shortage.

Why against coal. It is by far the cheapest & most sensible way to produce the power most depend on.

Then the plastics furphy. I mentioned some time back there is a whole range of plastic based on cellulose, which could replace hydrocarbon based plastic any time we want to. The only reason it hasn't is that the whole infrastructure of plastic raw material manufacture would have to be seriously modified.

Even this would be easy compared to getting a new material accepted by the public, when it is not required.

Don't forget that for almost 8 years, when living on & cruising, & working from my yacht, I had a lower carbon footprint than anyone you know. It was even lower than the average villager in PNG.

I used 6 Lbs of gas, & a couple of gallons of liquid fuel a month.

I am not wedded to the stuff, just anti the global warming fraud, & the other rubbish we are fed. Talk sense & fact, rather than garbage, & you'll find a quite different reception.

Continued

On the mining thing, I won't mind at all to see a slow down in China put a brake on development there.

It really worries me that we have become so dependant on the foreign exchange earned by minerals, that we would be even worse off than Grease or Spain, if it were reduced greatly, particularly if the reduction were sudden.

It is the mining boom pushing the value of the dollar, that is destroying so much of the rest of our industry. The returns on farming are becoming so marginal that the risk is now outweighing the gain, unless you have reliable irrigation. Oz, that was built on dry land farming/grazing is loosing its farmers at an amazing rate.

So many of the industries I used to service with plastic raw materials are now gone, or become importers. It is just too expensive to manufacture with todays cost/wage structure.

With out the huge tonnage of exports, the ports & rail lines are probably not viable, so I think we are a bit like that dog chasing its tail. If we slow down, or let go, we will crash, in a very big way. Lets hope not.

Sorry about the tardy responses – I wasn’t ignoring anyone ...

Anthonyve – appreciate your tongue in cheek on the nationalisation suggestion. You seem to be very angry that Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer are very rich – if they were manufacturers instead of miners, would you be demanding that that the manufacturing industry pays more tax? Where is the anger coming from? These are not Victorian era Punchesque top hat wearing cigar smoking capitalist buffoons profiting from children in the mines. I think we need to move past that stereotype for any useful discussion.

I think that the miners pay the tax asked of them. There is another OLO thread going at the moment with a similar theme and I will try to also make a post there. Is this fair? Well, I don’t think it’s unfair – they are essentially treated as any other business from a taxation point of view (until now) and pay a royalty to state governments for the right to exploit the resources (essentially buying the in-situ resource). That seemed to be OK when the industry was struggling for decades with low commodity prices; it should be OK now.

I actually think your post regarding the analogy of the buggy whip company is a good one. However, for coal it is only partially relevant to alternative power generation because some coal is used for steelmaking (metallurgical or coking coal) and some burnt in power houses (thermal or steaming coal). The former is a source of carbon in the blast furnace and so will not be displaced by solar energy. However, I like your reasoning and presentation of the concept that the latter might become anachronistic. I just think it will be many decades before this occurs.

Ludwig – the $4.9B figure I quoted is for resource royalties paid to the WA government only, taken from their website (www.dmp.wa.gov.au/4407.aspx ). It does not include any taxes, duties, excises or third party deals like payments that may be due under native title agreements or to other third parties (eg. local community subsidies).

$1B was from oil & gas production and $3.9B was from mining. As per the constitution, this money stays in WA but it’s not that simple. WA’s share of the GST collected here will drop from 72% in 2011 to 25% in 2015 – the rest is distributed to “poorer” states. Hence, if you like, there is an indirect “sharing of the wealth” from the WA mining royalties.

The DMP (www.dmp.wa.gov.au/1525.aspx) also provides handy stats on the value of production, as requested. WA resources sale value for 2011 was $107B, with the larger shares being: Iron Ore = 62.8B, Oil & gas = 21.3B, Gold = 8.8B, Alumina = 4.1B, Nickel = 3.9B

WA also recorded $35.6B worth of capital investment for resources during the year which is a significant proportion of the revenue derived (of course there are ins & outs). In addition, all operating costs, taxes, exploration, wages, royalties, etc have to come out of the $71.4B left over. I do not have a feel for the overall net profits made.

To make the comparison you ask, I have pulled some figures from the 2011-12 fiscal performance, the latest federal government budget and the GDP:
• The deficit in the federal government books for 2011-12 is expected to be about $42B
• The 2012-13 federal budget is worth about $365B
• The current commonwealth debt is about $250B
• The 2011 GDP was about $914B

I hope that provide the perspective you required.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cop-told-make-awb-probe-go-away-20120606-1zwqk.html
This link is of huge interest, to everyone of us who care for truth.
Some but far from all, know already how huge and how very deeply corrupted the government was in this matter.
We saw the end of careers of even a Deputy Prime Minister.
Other Ministers too, some now sitting out side the Parliament throwing stones at Labor.
Basically here is the truth,SOME within that government, wanted to sell wheat on behalf of our farmers.
To any one, including Iraq, bribes a way of life in the middle east they saw the sale as an end worth ANY effort.
In doing so the AWB was nearly destroyed, We faced illegal trade allegations from American wheat growers.
And those who the whole corrupt issue wanted to help the most, our farmers, suffered the most.
We paid one of the many middle east murdering dictators to kill his people.
Two last things, Liberal/Nationals/ Conservatives that they are today bury their dead deeply,with aid from our lost media.
And in this matter help from an exuberant ALP pleased with its victory, blind to todays lie machine driven by wealth and privilege.

Hi Peter,
To clear up one point, I 'm not angry at rinehart and palmer because they're rich - as it happens I'm rather well off myself.
No, I'm angry about their behaviour; their abuse of privilege; their willingness to participate in lies; their utter disregard for the wellbeing of others and for the wellbeing of our nation.
All the while mouthing meaningless platitudes.
And would I be as angry if they were in manufacturing? Yes, if they behaved as they do.
To quote Edmund Burke, "all that is required for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing".
I would add a rider, that evil comes in many forms.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yes Anton, I am poor.

I used to run butcher shops, deal with many staff, most good, some thieves delt with blood sucking land lords, had several investigations from those fair work fools, all of which turned out to be witch hunts, but still cost me thousands.

Nowadays, I don't even leave my front gate for work, cut about $1000 a day in timber, not bad for a five or six hour day.

Poor little ol me.

As for your quest to convert us all to your beloved wind mills, solar or any other form of green power you can dream of, good luck, but you have to remember, most of us are realists.

We also realize that mining is the back bone of our economy, as not only does it drive our exports, but it creates huge numbers of support jobs, jobs that simply wouldn't be there if not for mining.

In fact, take away mining, Bette still, take away WA and the rest of the country is teetering on resection.

So, with more than 60% agains the carbon tax, do you think labor are getting the message?

Or are you also in denial?

Has been, unlike many, I admire your efforts and have stomped on the same ground as you, the Whitsundays.

Happy sailing.

<< Nice try Ludwig, but you know full well I support a ETS in favor of a permit to pollute, which is essentially what the carbon tax is. >>

Rehctub, no I didn’t realise that you supported an ETS. I can’t keep track of everyone’s views on everything!

I agree that the carbon tax could effectively be a licence to pollute, if it is left as end-point and is not just the first step in a new green momentum. Unless it is progressively strengthened, it will be ineffectual… and WILL essentially be a licence from the federal govt to continue with business as usual while they are seen to be a little bit green.

So it is possible that doing nothing could actually be better than introducing a piddling and highly compromised carbon tax if it won’t be taken any further.

Ok, so you support an ETS. But wouldn’t there be just the same concerns with it as you have with a carbon tax – the negative effect on business?

<< Ludwig I am totally against bull sh1t. Peak oil is bull sh1t… >>

Dear o dear Hasbeen. You can’t assert that! You don’t know! And when we don’t know but can see a high likelihood, what should we do?

Err on the side of caution and plan accordingly.

See, this is the fundamental flaw in your whole argument – your assertion of things that you just simply can’t assert.

You should be a sceptic or a neutralist. Denialism makes no sense!!

You didn’t answer my query about population. Again, it seems that you can see the folly in ever-increasing population and hence presumably in the ever-increasing demand for all manner of resources, but you can’t or won’t see the other side of the equation – the non-increasing if not declining supply of essential resources….and the changing economics as they become harder to obtain or at least considerably more expensive.

Peter Mac, thanks very much. I’ll have to study all of that before offering further comment. Cheers.

Where is everyone?? This thread’s gone all quiet!

Peter Mac, can I ask you; do you think the people of Australia are getting a fair and reasonable return from our mineral resources?

Thanks for your comprehensive replies to my questions, but I’m still finding it hard to put into perspective.

I feel the with the wealth generated by the current level of mining, on top of many years of boom times, should be rapidly taking care of all the things that plague us. Everything that needs big expenditure to improve it should be well on the way to significant improvement, and really should have been years ago.

But this is far from the case!

So what on earth is going on?

Surely one of the major reasons for this is that we are not getting a high enough return from our mineral wealth, and the mining companies are getting too much. Way too much!

No

I agree with Gregory McDaven.

Ludwig old mate, big oil, & the Ruskies are forming partnerships to exploit shale oil deposits in Russia that are about 1,000 times larger than the US shale deposits.

They anticipate this reserve could supply all current & future global demand for 100 years.

The deep oil now being tapped off South America is of near similar proportions.

We have enough oil in central Qld to supply all our needs for a similar length of time.

I have never bothered to think about the reasons we let big oil refuse to buy the Rundle oil, once it was proved viable at less than $70 a barrel. It does have signs of conspiracy, when looked at in conjunction with the impending closure of all our oil refineries.

Looking at that too deeply would probably make me cranky, & give me a headache. I don't have enough years left to spend any in such useless activity.

So mate, I'm not talking anything that is not well known, if you bother to look.

I just picked up my 32 year old sports car from the body shop, after a complete repaint. This is the second refurbishment in 12 years, & over 60,000Km, since I first restored her. In that time she has cost me no depreciation, & about $6000 total in maintenance, including this paint job. That also includes fitting airconditioning when I got too damn old to to drive comfortably without it.

$500 a year to drive a beautiful old car, now that's what I call conservation.

Lug wig, Rehctub here, my first choice is not to tax polluters at all, as they only pollute to service our needs, so if anyone should be taxed, it's the user of energy, not the producer.

If the user gets slugged with the tax, they will have little choice other than to cut back, however, this will hurt the poor and not really bother the rich.

One system is to offer cheap power for the first X amount of KW's used, essentially enough to run a very basic home, no pool, no dryer etc.

I have long held the view it's better to reward than punish, as people will do anything for a reward.

However, if we have to have a tax on big business, it should be an ETS.

Hasbeen, you are presenting the most optimistic possible scenario regarding the future supply of oil. In all probability it will be nowhere near that good.

And we need to consider these all-important points:

rapidly increasing population, both in Australia and globally,

rapidly increasing per-capita consumption, especially in China and India,

increasing population plus increasing per-capita consumption means an ongoing very rapid increase in the demand for oil, on top of the current phenomenally huge global demand,

and changed economics [considerably more expensive energy sources] as new and more difficult sources of oil/hydrocarbons come online.

<< We have enough oil in central Qld to supply all our needs for a similar length of time. >>

Really? And at what price?

By “we”, I take it you mean all of Australia?

My assertion remains: we need to err on the side of caution and strive to wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil, most significantly in order to protect us against a huge peak oil upheaval.

Rehctub, that sounds reasonable.

I’m just not sure which would be the most effective way of doing it. All I can really say is that we must definitely be doing something by way of financial incentives to get us to move towards renewable energy.

The second major point is as I keep saying; that we can’t stop after one or two little steps in this direction. If we did, we would basically be just upholding business as usual and only putting in a token effort at change.

Ludwig & rehctub,

I happened upon the below in a recent Fortune magazine.
[Love the idea about solar space stations –way to go!]
But of particularly relevance to your little discussion is the graph headed: “The Future Of Electric Generation”
Given its prediction of our continued reliance on carbon sources what are the implications?
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/05/energy-solutions-solar-space-panels/

Butcher, you ask as the title of your thread:

>> Do you think labor are getting the message? <<

Others see it quite differently as in this National Times article:

http://tinyurl.com/merchants-of-doom

Perhaps the real question to ponder is:

Does anyone think the so called "No-alition" is getting the message?

A lot of ostriches out there, obviously.

Bonmot, Ms Gillard is out there right now, talking up the economy.

What she, and in fact all labor supporters simply won't acknowledge, is that if you do a very simple exercise and take away WA and mining, we are in recession.

How on earth is that getting the message?

In fact, they are worse than not getting the message, they are in fact providing anyone who is gullible enough to believe them, with false hope.

Ludwig, I hold the view that we should be dealing with carbon, as much as trying to reduce it.

Simply reducing it comes with the risk of damaging our already fragile economy, as there is no doubt, given the latest figures, that we are 120% reliant on mining and WA.

So carbon storage should be a priority.

Rethinking the way we build, by using more timber and less steel.

Giving incentives to raise houses, thus using timber floors, rather than concrete.

Using timber cladding, or better still, bamboo.

All forms of timber store carbon, we should also be looking heavily into the platation and value adding of bamboo for building, as bamboo exhaubes about six times the carbon as timber.

Once the carbon is captured, then the timber/bamboo used to build with, it's stored.

We are about to produce billions of liters of CSG water, why not use it to grow bamboo in the same areas as the water is produced, with is predominately poor grade land.

Yep,

Some want to be progressive and promote the economy.

Others want to be regressive and talk down the economy.

Did the butcher read or understand the article?

http://tinyurl.com/merchants-of-doom

Obviously not.

Bonmot, while I may appear negative, I prefer to think I am a realist.

Have you actually looked at the numbers state by state.

WA had huge growth at 8%, while QLD, even with it's mining fell by 0.8%.

As I said before, take away WA and mining, there's not much left to crow about is there!

Dear butcher,

“As I said before, take away WA and mining, there's not much left to crow about is there!”

The fact is that WA with all its expertise with a shovel is only fourth behind NSW, Victoria and Queensland in state GDP. It is not even half that of NSW and it has a hell of a long way to catch up even the third on the list Queensland.

WA is about the size of Algeria and has a similar GDP.

Yet we seem prepared to put the manufacturing and other GDP producing enterprises of the Eastern seaboard at risk to bow down and deify a few WA miners.

Sheer stupidity.

Csteel, it's called costs.

Our manufacturing simply can't compete.

Meanwhile, we continue to prop up a car industry that is simply dying. The cash splash will simply delay it's death.

Government must step in and make employing cheaper, and easier.

Now I am not suggesting cutting wages, but they, along with the cost of compliance make doing profitable business here next to impossible.

What I'm saying is that governments must provide welfare, not businesses and they must cut through the red tape that is damaging productivity.

Hi C. Steele,

It's not a matter or either/or - either manufacturing OR mining. Growth in one sector may have little or nothing to do with that in another: growth in both is possible simultaneously.

Just trying to be helpful :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, growth in manufacturing is impossible as long as the wages being paid by miners continues.

This is why something must be done to bridge the gap.

My suggestion is to place a levy on miners pay rolls, and use these funds to subsidize non mining wages.

Same should apply to rents, as many locals of until recently, unknown towns, simp,y can't afford the new rents.

In my town of Miles, rents have gone from $120 per week, up as high as $1500 per week within four years.

At the same time, small business is struggling as they can't find anyone to work for what most consider normal wages.

It is also my understanding that the MRRT doesn't address either of these issues, directly. But correct if I'm wrong.

rechtub,

Yes, the towns that host mining do have a problem with rents and businesses trying to maintain operation in the "real world". The other side of the coin is in the fly-in/fly-out phenomenon which carries its own problems. There's a lot of psychological pressure on families to endure this sort of set-up. It's really just unfolding how difficult many people are finding this type of arrangement.

As for workers in the mining sector earning big bickies: my son-in-law is presently working in the Pilbara and has almost half his wage taken in tax (they have no children) I know of another single fellow who's worked on Barrow Island for twenty years who pays the same in tax....of course, he's still very comfortable, but much of this taxed income is and should be going to the causes you espouse.

Thanks Butch, point taken :)

P, your son in law musT be on huge wages, as the top tax bracket doesn't kick in till he earns about $80K.

So he only pays 48c/ $ on anything above $80K.

What is more attractive to mining workers, than most other conditions, is the on off style rosters. Many are now two on, two off.

Regular business simply can't compete.

On another issue, I heard today that there are doubts about the Bowan basin coal projects.

What I heard was that China is building a train line to Mongolia and, that Mon has 100 times the coaking coal as we do and, with the combination of the carbon tax, and mining taxes, our cost of production will be $150 per ton, we sell it for $130 per ton.

Mongolias cost of production is something like $40 per ton.

This simply means those against coal mining may well get their wish, as our coal boom may end in two years or so.

WHAT THEN!