It's time to keep a tally of all the ways the carbon tax is destroying this nation and I'd like to start with: http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/stop-presses-fairfax-cuts-explained-carbon-tax?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=7af008bdaa-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email
What will go next from the corner deli after newspapers? Milk, bread, flour, sugar? It's horrendous!

'It's horrendous!'

No just plain deceitful and dumb!

Carbon tax what did it, collection was down at runners Church last week.
Has not rained for months in parts of western NSW.
Bees are disappearing.
My garden went white over night.
Carbon tax is the reason Chris Pyne smirks all the time, and Abbott has eyes like those in his post out.
Gillards coats fitted better before the carbon tax.
And it has not even started yet!

Dear LF,

"The carbon tax did it."

Oh Yeah!

Religious fanatics, extreme nationalists,
avaricious corporations, its all the fault
of the carbon tax! And worse is still to
come - not in July - but after the next
election - especially if there's a change in
goverment.

Someone recently mentioned thatbthe GST had a far greater impact than the carbon tax will. Well that's just rubbish.

With the average wage being about $900 per week, net, and, given say $400 of this is spent on non GST items, the maximum paid in GST is $50.

However, this carbon tax will effect all businesses and will be passed on, plus some, at every level.

You can kid yourself as much as you like, but apart from mining, which by the way this government is also trying to kill off, the rest of the countries business community, the risk takers and employers, are frankly S-ing themselves over this tax.

Of cause the sky won't fall in come July 1, as the damage may take up to years to surface, as unlike most workers, business owners can't just take their ball and go elsewhere, as most have their family homes on the line.

God help us all if this gamble doesn't pay off.

This is a totally disconnected Government!

"Of cause the sky won't fall in come July 1........." then why does the opposition assert its falling in?

".....as the damage may take up to years to surface......" don't you mean the benefits?

".....as unlike most workers, business owners can't just take their ball and go elsewhere, as most have their family homes on the line." as do competing businesses up the road to no nett effect, but expect price rises in goods and services, which is what the income tax cuts and pension rises compensate.

A rhetorical question, when will whingers get off the BNT shock-horror mantra and acknowledge compensatory offsets?

The carbon tax made me miss my bus today, oh yeah.

Ludwig.We are wasting our time.The Govt parasite will never admit it is feeding off the host of real productivity.Sustainable development is the code word for enviro fascism.

<< Sustainable development is the code word for enviro fascism >>

Oh please, Arjay!

Sustainability is essential. Think about it.

And the carbon tax is but one tiny step in the right direction.

The task becomes more difficult.
That task?
In the hands of the non conservatives, non powerful and rich, who seek control?
Truth.
Little of it exists in most posts here,even less understanding.
GST in fact had far more impact, maths! it is just true.
We see no understanding posted as truth.
A time nears, here and world wide, that needs ordinary folk to stand up and be counted.
Gina's madness, throwing cash away to buy a paper to preach the lie, climate change lie, needs to be fought.
Our first weapon? see the failure to even see truth, in its foot soldiers here.

@All the Carbon Tax apologists,

Still, it is somewhat ironic and highly amusing that the same people/groups who are greatly affronted if ANYthing nasty (economywise) is attributed to the Carbon Tax, are quite happy to see EVERYthing nasty, be it, storms, bush fires, epidemics or famine attributed to AGW.

As the saying goes: “what goes around comes around

Luciferase, what are the benefits of a huge tax, on an extremely small omoiitter, in what is a global issue?

Also, what are the benefits on a tax, that is little more than a permit to pollute?

What are the benefits of imposing a tax, knowing it will increase prices, then subsidizing those most effected?

Most importantly, how do you propose we continue to feed the worlds demands, (our lifeblood) and maintain our quality of life, while at the same time reducing omissions?

Would it not make more sense to have an ETS?

Would it not make more sense to invest heavily in carbon storage, by changing the way we build for starters?

Finally, we all know that responsible gambling is the key.

Can you hold your hand on your heart and say this tax, along with the MRRT is not taking a huge gamble with the very thing we can't afford to loose?

Belly, given the average person only pays about $60 per week in GST and, they are saving that in food, clothing and white goods, how can the GST have a greater impact?

Also, the GST does not threaten their jobs.

I can see you as the cheer leader come mid July, sprooking that the sky didn't fall in, then, in a year or two, IF THIS TAX CAUSES DAMAGE finding some convenient excuse, much like the GFC has been used to death.

As I have always maintained, nobody really knows if this tax will hurt, but it's a huge gamble given the way the global scene is at present.

I can't afford to loose mining, can you two?

Rehctub, you asked of Luciferase:

<< …what are the benefits of a huge tax, on an extremely small omoiitter, in what is a global issue?

Also, what are the benefits on a tax, that is little more than a permit to pollute? >>

My answers would be:

1. The benefit as I see it is much more significantly related to peak oil than to climate change. We surely want to develop alternative energy sources given that we are faced with the very high likelihood of the price of oil rising a lot in the near future, due to still rapidly increasing world demand and faltering ability to meet demand.

2. Yes, if the carbon tax were to be left as it will be in a few days’ time and not subjected to successive strengthening, it will amount to a licence to pollute. It will be nothing more than a token effort of very little consequence. What’s the answer? A progressively bigger tax and progressively smaller compensation offsets… perhaps.

Also, you asked:

<< Would it not make more sense to have an ETS? >>

Maybe it would. Or maybe an ETS as well as the CT.

I asked you this recently and didn’t receive an answer:

Wouldn’t there be just the same problems of the sort that you are most concerned with an ETS as with a carbon tax. That is; the negative impacts, in an uneven manner, on businesses of various sorts and on the consumers of everything made by those businesses?

only the worst poluters will pay
so stop whinning..they pay...lol..not us

yeah right..so who of the not 500 worst poluters
[not getting free carbon credits..will pay the most carbon tax?

i suggest those who need lots of lights
or need to keep petrol warm[so you get less]
or those who...need to keep food fresh..or frozen

but we know
ONLY THE 500 WORST..*must pay*

the rest of the mugs
[not the 500]..JUST guilted into thinking their one of the 500

govt dont lie
its only the 500 who pay!

or is she breaking yet another promise?

"The carbon tax is a horse that Abbott can ride all the way to the elections" - To quote Kristina Keneally,

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-looking-all-the-poorer-for-throwing-money-at-voters-20120619-20m0a.html

Labor has thrown billions of tax payers dollars at lower income in the hope that it will compensate for the carbon tax, but this has hardly registered in the polls. The next 18 months will be death by 1000 cuts as the bad news trickles through. Every price increase, every job loss will be accompanied by speculation as to how much of it was due to the carbon tax and Labor's broken promise. Labor's only defense will be to continually bleat that it isn't that bad and that what consumers are feeling is really from something else. This is never a good look. The revelation on July 1 will be that the voters are no longer listening to labor, and really don't like being lied to.

In 18 months when Federal Labor follows NSW and Queensland to electoral disaster we can all say "The carbon tax did it" Oh Yeah.

the power we buy
comes from many sources
and the price they buy varies

like brown coal gets a 90% free credits
so would average out ..WELL below...the present tax rate
when they sell it..to the ex govt distrubution racket

it it wholesale or retail we pay?

like if we use subsiidised coal[free credits]
then must pay STILL pay..full price

aint that double dipping..by someone?
coal; is one tenth the tax
thus tax rate must equal 1/10 th

only the top 500 pay at the set rate!

but watch we will be paying every penny of it
even if they *never paid..for most..of what we actually used..

ie paid to polute
but didnt actually get billed for

but we did
thats clear fraud

just to help govt find the true causes

Even If China
Did Not Fire The First Torpedo At The SS Bernanke,

We Can Still Sink The Ship

By: Chevaux
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160936/Millions-values-pensions-slashed-20-new-EU-rules-send-annuities-plummeting.html


The Chinese just bought the London Metals Exchange... The Chinese just recently bought the AMC movie chain so Hollywood can no longer make any film which the government of China disapproves. Power is shifting away from the West.

This policy of betrayal has continued to this present day. Under Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership will allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States to make sure that small businesses go bankrupt.

You do have to admire China. They are buying exchanges, theater chains, oil, gold, silver, commodities, food and farm land.

Meanwhile Ben Bernanke is printing up dollars and will send us all into Hyperinflation soon enough

Millions will see pensions slashed by up to 20%
as new EU rules are set to send annuities plummeting
http://whatreallyhappened.com/


Millions of people..could see the value of their pensions slashed..by up to 20 per cent because of new EU rules.

Those with a £100,000 pension fund could be more than £1,100 per year worse off in retirement because of the reforms, research has shown.

The Solvency II rules, which are due to come into effect in January 2014, will force pension funds to hold a higher proportion of 'safe' Government bonds.

As the bonds -called gilt - have such low rates of return..it will drive down the returns on retirement fund annuities,..which are used to pension income.

grow your own food
stop consuming
starve
http://www.cracked.com/article_19896_the-6-creepiest-lies-food-industry-feeding-you.html

We live in interesting times of that there's
no doubt. Alister Drysdale, of the
Business Spectator and former senior
adviser to Malcolm Fraser and Jeff Kennett
tells us that:

"We have a PM who sees her job as
putting the national interest first. It is about
delivering good public policy and hoping that
translates into good politics. It's about
substance not sham."

"The Opposition of course is in an enviable
position. It can paint the government "as the most
incompetent in Australia's history" and have it
faithfully reported and repeated. It can continue
to oppose almost everything the government proposes;
knowing it has the public largely onside along with
sections of the media set on regime change - whatever
the price."

"It can continue with its own "aspirational" policies
that arent's set in stone. It can continue to dig up
dirt files and call for instant elections, thus
adding to a general sense of political instability."

Drysdale predicts that the Gillard government will continue
with infrastructure reform. They will ensure the NBN roll-out
doesn't get bogged down in regulatory morass, and they
will "sell" the carbon package when it comes into effect July
1st.

Politically, they will draw a deep line in the sand between
its economic strategies and job management and those
spruiked by the Opposition, in varying forms.

In other words the government will simply get on with the
grind of governing.

The Opposition will continue to keep going down a
base-level political path.

The carbon tax is just another reason, along with others, to justify
manufacturers shutting down Australian production and moving offshore.

Next thing Lexi and Belly will be telling us that we need more
jobs here! Shoot yourselves in your feet kids, eventually you
will click, when it hurts enough.

Lexi,

Alister Drysdale was a press secretary, not a political or economic adviser, and while his opinion is important to himself and to you it is not shared with the majority of Australians.

Juliar is perceived to put her own interests ahead of the national interest, and has generally produced poor policy such as the NBN and carbon tax which she steadfastly shields from independent scrutiny.

His prediction that Juliar will sell her carbon tax is looking more and more unlikely.

SM: Labor has thrown billions of tax payers dollars at lower income in the hope that it will compensate for the carbon tax, but this has hardly registered in the polls. The next 18 months will be death by 1000 cuts as the bad news trickles through. Every price increase, every job loss will be accompanied by speculation as to how much of it was due to the carbon tax and Labor's broken promise."

The Coalition's strategy in a nutshell, plus boats = votes, of course.

What is demonstrated by all this is how wonderful the Coalition is at being in opposition, and may it remain so until the current governments reforms are complete and bedded into national life.

Dear LF,

Amen to that!

LF,

Are you suffering from the delusion that Abbott is not going to strip out the carbon tax? Given his hugely successful and unrelenting campaign, not to do so would be electoral suicide, and Abbott does not strike me as displaying suicidal tendencies.

When the government implement stupid policies (that are not so good for the voters), it is good for the opposition polling.

All the arguing to and fro about carbon dioxide and whether there
should be a tax or an ets or all the other ins and outs of the matter
are destined to be forgotten.
How much thought do you think Greece, or indeed Germany, is giving to
their CO2 ets scheme at the present time.
The time is approaching rather fast, that all those schemes and
proposals will be abandoned.

No one will be prepared to spend any money whatsoever on them when
unemployment is climbing above 25%.
Spain is a classic example, they have removed subsidies for wind and
solar and one of the major solar companies has folded.

It is about time that those politicians who are aware of the real
situation spelt it out loud for those who are still trying to ignore it.

The present low growth is permanent and will eventually change into
contraction. Why is it do you think that politicians including Gillard
are still waffling on about growth ?
It is because she either does not understand or is frightened to admit
that Australia is running on borrowed Chinese time.

It is about time you all woke up and started to study what has
happened in Europe and the US and start applying the same parameters
to Australia.
Energy is the key to survival and it is about time the government did
something about hoarding our energy resources.

Like those old time religious preachers used to say;

"THE END OF GROWTH IS NIGH !"

Dear Bazz,

Public policy innovations such as the carbon tax often
struggle to become widespread. They are not eagerly
applauded. This is because communicating innovation
is no easy task - especially when the government's
focus is to get on with governing despite the toxic
environment it has to face daily from the Opposition.

I prefer to believe what economic experts tell
us about our economy and how its doing and will continue
to do in the future - providing there isn't a change in
government. I live in Victoria - and what happened under
Jeff Kennett was dreadful. The same is happening under
the current Liberal government. Labor always gets
accused of "spending." They are forced to spend because
during Liberal administrations they fail to maintain
all public and social services and infrastructure
at a constant level resulting in deterioration and
decline of services and infrastructure. It always takes
the Labor government to repair the damage done and bring
the state or the nation to a level that the Libs can start
destroying again. A house not maintained collapses -
regardless of how much you have in the bank.
What good is putting money away (a generous surplus)
and allowing everything else to deteriorate to the detriment
of the nation. That is not good economic management. It's
idiotic.

SM, sorry to link to the same website of late but it does save me wasting keystrokes in responding to your authoritative assertions. http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/four-reasons-abbott-won-t-repeal-carbon-tax

LF,

The article by Daniel Palmer makes a lot of very brave assumptions:

1 That the carbon tax suddenly becomes less odious, and voters forget the lie.

2 Given the likely hood that the carbon tax will be one of the defining issues in the election, it would be suicide for Abbott not to abolish it.

3 That it will take 12-18 months to get a DD election (Abbott will certainly rush this through probably in a few months whilst it is forefront in the voters' minds.)

4 That Labor will die in a ditch to stop the tax being abolished, the risk of a DD giving Abbott control of both houses is unlikely to be the ambition of the new shadow cabinet (of which Gillard is unlikely to be a member)

Ha Ha Lexi, are you familiar with the "Turing Test"
Lexi, your reply was to something I did not write.
You just failed the test, you are not a real person but as I suspected
a computer in the basement of Labour Party HQ in Canberra.

It matters not a hoot whether we embrace carbon dioxide taxes or ets
schemes etc.
It really does not matter what the effects on our economy are with or
without the tax. We have more important fish to fry.
Investment funds are drying up, so where will the money come from to
apply the co2 reduction technologies.
Whatever funds we can russle up will be needed to restructure our
transport systems to electrical propulsion.
ie we will have to reconstruct our railways to get food to the cities.

Our pollies on both sides are away with the fairies on this.
They are still working on a "Business as Usual" economy and that died in 2006.
There are only two who declared their understanding in Canberra,
Barnaby Joyce and Martin Ferguson.
Barnaby is not taken seriously and Martin has been shut up.
Have a look and see if your library has a copy of any of Richard Heinbergs books.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for making my day and giving me the best
laugh. I really needed it today having just returned
from visiting a relative in a nursing home.

I love your sense of humour.

Barnaby Joyce for PM?

PS: I actually like Barnaby very much -
which you may find hard to believe.

Sorry Ludwig, I didn't see your question.

I have to make it clear I am not in favor of either as I am convinced the answer lies in finding ways, or changing our ways to store carbon. After all, reduced emissions means reduced productivity, means reduced REAL employment.

One small example is farme and their fences/yards.
many now are turning to steel, mainly because it's cheaper to import steel from China than it is to but timber fencing rails, posts.

Of cause, manufacturing steel produces carbon, regardless of where it is made and, there is a fair chance our coal was burned to produce it.

So, my suggestion would be for governments to subsidize timber for farming, and building for that matter, so it become attractive to them.

Just remember, every old stock yard you see in the country,every timber fence post, there are millions, many haing been there for fifty years or more, store carbon.

OUG says...only the worst poluters will pay
so stop whinning..they pay...lol..not us

So, I ask OUG, why do they produce these emissions?

Sure, they do it to make money, but the real reason they produce this carbon is to serve our needs.

Meanwhile, jobs are being slashed everywhere and your lot are all very very busy looking for an excuse.

So the government has propped up the dying car industry, so are they also going to prop up the media industry I wonder.

Only fools gamble with what they can't afford to loose.

"Meanwhile, jobs are being slashed everywhere and your lot are all very very busy looking for an excuse." Not at all, butch, the carbon tax did it!

Seriously tho', re your idea about sequestration of CO2 in wood construction, we can grow more trees to soak up extra CO2, problem solved, let's start planting. We'll call it an emissions trading scheme and we'll replace this stupid carbon tax with it. The Mad Monk can take the idea to the next election instead of of asking tax-payers to pay industry to reduce emissions.

I hurt myself today, oh that carbon tax!

Dear LF,

Here's something that many people may not realise.
Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme will cost
companies far more then the carbon pricing legislation
ever could. Plus he's made the promise to repel
the Gillard Government's pricing legislation (a pledge
in blood) if he becomes PM. As Laurie Oakes has pointed out
Mr Abbott, "would roll back something as big and
complex as the carbon price scheme - it is an easy promise
to make but hugely difficult to keep without great
upheaval."

Mr Abbott though has a record of making promises that
are unaffordable. Everyone knows that - but he's also
a hypocrite in blaming the PM for the "carbon tax,"
while what he's proposing (his paid maternity leave)
will hit businesses even harder than the carbon pricing
ever could.

The paid maternity leave will cost more than the carbon tax. When did you dream this up? Maths not your strong point I see.

It took a year to implement, why should it not take a year to remove? one just reverses every thing. It can't cause as much damage as the tax caused being implemented. The costs can be covered by scrapping all the greens silly schemes.

Dear SM,

Do your research old chap.
Or ask Andrew Bolt. He wrote an excellent
column on this very issue. Or is doing
research not your strong point?

I'm hearing it, Lexi, "the babies did it!" Oh yeah.

SM says "The costs can be covered by scrapping all the greens silly schemes." A few slashed green schemes wouldn't pay for a repeal, but income tax rises, pension reductions, a GST increase or removal of carbon tax compensation schemes to exporters would. Make your own blend, but it's hard to take back what's given while claiming it's an improvement and paying emitters to create efficiencies.

The omelet will be nigh on impossible to unscramble, blood oath or no. I really do think you're on a loser here, oh authoritative one http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-blood-oath-may-become-bloody-nuisance-20111018-1lyr5.html

Lexi,

Do your research. How does a $3bn scheme compare with one that starts at $11bn p.a. and increases every year. I am not a fan of the scheme, but it does not add any input costs to small or big business. Whereas the carbon tax is a direct input cost that reduces competitiveness of every single business.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Nice try to divert.
Read Andrew Bolt's column - he explains
what the costs will be of the Maternity
Leave Scheme to businesses - big and small.
And we are talking about broken promises here
which as you know Mr Abbott promised not to
increase taxes yet on the 7.30 Report he
stated to Kerry O'Brien when quizzed about
the Maternity Leave Scheme - that voters
should not believe every pledge he makes
unless it it written down as the "gospel truth."

As Lindsay Tanner pointed out, "Occassionally
politicians break promises, often driven by
wider circumstances and responsibility, where it
is the responsible thing to do, to change tack."

"But to suggest that somehow, any of us should be
immune from responsibility for things we say
when the vast bulk of political communication is
verbal, whether on radio or on TV I think is
astonishing."

Hear, hear!

cont'd ...

Of course that translates that Mr Abbott's pledges
to "Cut the Tax," and "Stop the Boats,"
are only political ploys to get him elected.
They're verbal - therefore they fit into the
category as he explained on the 7.30 Report of
- "Don't believe everything I say!"
Only scripted promises are "Gospel!"

As I said elsewhere, much of what is being planned by politicians will
have to be abandoned. Money is drying up big time internationally as
well as in Australia.
By this time next year we will have plenty of promises made to us by
the pollies but unless I am very mistaken almost none of them will be implemented.

The austerity measures we are observing in Europe will arrive here.
We are not innocent from the big credit splurge of to last decade.
China has whole cities built and no one buying the 100s thousands
appartments that are up for sale. They have an enormous financial
collapse hanging over their head due to local government lending.

The only solution open to governments is to issue pixel money.
(they no longer print money).
The resultant inflation will devalue their debt.

Did you see the money exchange on SBS last night in Somarlialand ?
The reporter had an arm full of notes worth 18 cents US !
He took away a hundred US dollars worth in a wheelbarrow.

That is where we are heading if we are not very careful.

"Mr Abbott promised not to increase taxes" So what taxes has he increased. I was unaware that the opposition could introduce taxes. This is a change of policy, not a broken promise.

As for repealing the carbon tax and stopping the boats, Abbott not suffering from Labor lack of morals will do it.

just heard on abc
that re state funding's
3 out of every 10 dollars
comes from our power bills

alp state govts
your just too clever by half
then juliar..with her 130 new taxes

lol telling world leaders to do it 'her' way
ie tax your people into early graves...she comes close to that hair lot of the end rhymes..

just a bit more pain wont hurt
and sold..by the only one who might have been better
too clever by half..its a con bet..get rid of two lefties..in one election

too clever by half

Dear SM,

Mr Abbott promised not to increase taxes prior
to the last election - yet his Maternity Leave
Scheme would have done just that as Andrew Bolt
points out in his article. The only reason
Mr Abbott did not go through with it was -
he lost the election.

Lexi,

Could have, would have, should have. He might have raised taxes, or funded it from savings etc. Abbott has as of yet not raised a single tax or broken a single promise since assuming leadership.

I see you still have not shown how a $3bn tax would have a greater effect than Juliar's $11bn carbon tax lie.

The following link explains the effects of
Mr Abbott's New Tax:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/now-tony-abbott-a-great-big-new-tax/story-e6frezzO-1226295849780

Your statement "Abbott's paid maternity leave scheme will cost companies far more then the carbon pricing legislation ever could."

Is still incorrect.

This opinion piece is still wrong. The carbon tax is not $5bn, and all business including 400 000 small businesses will be hit by the carbon tax with no compensation.

"400 000 small businesses will be hit by the carbon tax with no compensation"

The compensation will come is raised prices charged by small business due to costs rising. No small business is exempt from the flow on effects of the carbon tax feeding into their cost base, so they remain in the same competitive position relative to each other. Customers/clients will have more money to pay the higher prices due to compensatory tax cuts and rises in government benefits.

Now, the inflationary effects have been calculated by the Treasury as have the compensatory tax cuts and rises in government benefits. All that's left to do by the opposition is to keep the public in a perpetually scared state over any change/reform and deny any offsets/benefits.

All this is an abuse of the intelligence of the electorate, but when I read SM's posts, who claims to authoritatively represent the opinion everyman, I do wonder.

I am not correct?

Of course.

The carbon tax is to blame for everything.

Senator George Brandis blames the carbon tax
for Fairfax woes.

If Mr Abbott becomes Prime Minister - we can all blame that
on the carbon tax.

He's a man who doesn't lie.

LF

From the twaddle in your last post, you obviously have no economic qualifications whatsoever. The assumption that none of these businesses are competing with overseas companies, or on line sales, and all will happily be able to put up their prices without losing business is based on ignorance.

Lexi,

When Abbott becomes PM, you can blame the carbon tax.

For all it’s feared effects the Carbon Tax remains very much a poor cousin when compared to that great moral challenge of our age, AGW.

Here is just a few of its touted effects:

1) Hotter summers
2) Colder summers
3) Warmer winters
4) Colder winters
5) Early springs
6) Late Autumns
7) More rain
8) Less rain
9) Bigger badder storms
10) Volcanic eruptions
11) Earthquakes
12) Bigger and badder floods
13) Bigger and badder droughts
14) More civil unrest
15) Water wars in the undeveloped world.
16) More famines
17) More pestilence
18) The proliferation of weeds and feral animals
19) Malaria epidemics
20) More colds and flu
21) More old people dying in their homes of heat stroke,alone and unloved.
22) Oh, yes, and more Arthritis, Gout, Lumbago, Sciatica and general maladies (studies have shown conclusive that since the advent of AGW there has been a huge increase in the number of people reporting pains in their rear-ends)

And, some have the hide the whine about the Carbon Tax!

lets compare the worth of the carbon tax revenue raising
that ?..2 billion bailout..of floodies
only going to cost us a cup of coffee per day

so how much cough-fee
will we self funders need to find

will we be paying REAL TAX PAID
[by 500 poluters]..please verify
or will we be charged wether they got them for free or not

i feel the real tax burden..is up to 90%..less
on those..who get 90% free emisssion..[yet we pay full]

the true taxed 500 is hiden
because the true payers of the tax will be 22 million paying
some got free gifts..some get free polution..cause their greenhouse gas isnt taxed

braket creep[once hyper stagflation klicks in]
means even you lot too clever by half[with solar top up credits
that you forfeited carbon credit on]..will soon then too feel the pain..and then curse the liars name's[and their party][hopefully see all parties are the same

its the two party game
you blame me
i blame you
and we both keep doing..as two partyy systems do
[serve our past bosses adgendas..ie for the corperate seats]

If Mr Abbott becomes Prime Minister,
and he isn't able to repel the
carbon tax - will Mr Abbott then resign
or will he quote "changed circumstances.?"

After all he only takes responsibility for
pledges that are written down.

what[dear lexie]..if he reduced it
[down to the euro carbon rate..[$7]
and thats all he needs do

if he touched the tax free rate increase
[in his de-legislation]..before the double disolution
is doudtfull..but the only way lab can hope to not loose
[not the same as winning][liars cant win][yet often do..revealing much]

liars lie
say anything..then do as their told.

SM, there is export assistance for the CT impact on exporters, directly or via state governments who decide how to apportion it. Must every fact be restated as if it were unknown to you? You know perfectly well that domestically, what I wrote above in relation to the relative competitive positions of businesses competing intra-nationallyis is entirely correct, and that the "compensation" you demand for them lies in raising their prices.

Regarding internet sales, GST is the major issue for domestic shopfront retailers so they are joining in with their own sites located o/s, like Gerry Harvey. The carbon tax is dwarfed by several magnitudes of ten taking all cost inputs into account, as you well know, unless you are the one with no economic idea here.

To heck with the facts, tho', the carbon tax did it, oh yeah!

LF,

I take your silence combined with your simplistic and flawed analysis to mean that you have no economic qualifications whatsoever.

The compensation does not assist all consumers and thus cannot by your logic cover all the increase in prices. Likewise partial export assistance is provided for a small number of businesses, and no import protection is provided at all.

Businesses make profits on the margins between costs and sales, so while the costs go up by small amount compared to total costs, the percentage by which profits are eroded are much higher. Cost savings need to be made and inevitably people lose their jobs. (for which there is no CT compensation)

Other articles show that much of the emission reductions that Labor was counting on in their modelling (ie carbon capture and storage CCS) has produced no results even after hundreds of millions being thrown at it. Figures from Europe show that the ETS has so far made little to no reductions in emissions. So all we can expect from this Labor Green adventure is a further erosion of manufacturing, and a scattering of Greens/labor white elephants.

Lexi,

I think the carbon tax is wrong on so many levels, but concisely:

(1) If you don't believe in AGW, it's absurd
(2) If you do believe in AGW, it's ineffective.

The so-called carbon leakage that will result from taxing only about 350 companies in a single small country is beyond comprehension. And the carbon leakage will prove to be damaging at all scales (except to insolvency lawyers who are rubbing their hands together). The only thing the CT will achieve is to increase the cost of living.

However, by taking another swipe at Tony Abbott in your last post, you have inadvertently hit on a very important element of this whole farce – it will be difficult for his government to undo this CT imbroglio. One of the reasons is the structure – the main offsetting compensation for low income earners will be achieved by raising the tax-free threshold from about $6k to $18k. This not only affects the people in this bracket but everyone with a taxable income up to $80k (ie. over 50% of taxpayers & voters, hmmm).

Amongst many other measures that will have to be taken is that to cut out the CT, TA will also have to re-adjust the tax brackets back to where they were – no tax means no extra costs means no need for compensation. But we all know that it’s not that easy (as OUG pointed out). Even if the extra costs were taken off every product and service overnight, there will be a hue and cry that the coalition hate poor people and want these poor people to subsidise the rich.

They have been set up for a fall in this regard – I would like to think this has been unintentional but I may be naive.

I liken the carbon tax to those tricky little fish that live in the Amazon – there is some effort to get in, but once it’s in it is very uncomfortable and the host must get it out. Getting it out will be very, very painful but we must!

Dear Peter Mac.,

I'd like to have this conversation with you in
12 months from now - after the Carbon Pricing has been
implemented and up and running
and see whether you still feel the same way as
you do today.

The following link may be of some interest:

http://www.surfcoasttimes.com.au/news/environment/2012/06/21/businesses-urged-to-learn-carbon-footprint/

Peter Mac, you wrote:

<< I think the carbon tax is wrong on so many levels, but concisely:

(1) If you don't believe in AGW, it's absurd
(2) If you do believe in AGW, it's ineffective. >>

I beg to disagree.

The carbon tax should be all about peak oil, with climate change as a far distant second motive.

The supply rate of oil can’t keep meeting the still-rapidly-increasing global demand. Not at least without a big increase in price.

So we would be well-advised to get right into developing renewable energy sources so that we are not totally addicted to oil and it will be easier to make large-scale changes away from oil when the crunch hits.

It shouldn’t matter whether you believe in AGW or not! We should all be supporting a CT regardless of this.

Yes it will be ineffective if it is left as is. It should be a small first step towards a greener society.

But we’ve got to make that first step. And that is what is so important about the CT. We’ve got an essentially never-ending-expansionist strongly antisustainability-oriented government actually trying to do something sustainability-minded!

Let’s cherish that and support it all the way!

Actually, it is possible that our government can see the folly of continuing down the traditional oil-fuelled rapid-growth path and is trying to make a small step to steer away from it…. as hard as it is with big business bearing down on them and a large portion of the general community simply denouncing any more tax impositions upon them without giving a hoot about the reasons behind them.

Interesting thought. Hmm. I think I’ll start up a new general thread on that theme!

Hi Lexi – I look forward to keeping in touch and discussing various topics as we do and I’m sure this one will feature.

Your link discusses how businesses can save money by using resources more efficiently. Guess what? – this has nothing to do with the carbon tax per se but should be a principle that all businesses and householders apply all the time. Some do it well & some do it poorly. The implied message in the article that the carbon tax can present an opportunity for businesses to save money is just silly. But then the article is essentially just an advertisement. As my old dad used to tell me, “Believe nothing of what you read and only half of what you see.”

However, an important line from the article is: “Most business in Australia will not be directly impacted by the carbon tax. Small businesses will only be impacted by the flow-on effects.” If the word “only” is deleted, and this is cunningly placed to get the emphasis, this perfectly describes our future.

Dear Peter Mac,

It is interesting the impact of words and where
they are placed, I agree. For example when a
politician is asked whether he knows anything
about his party's involvement in certain matters and he
replies - "I have no specific knowledge of any
involvement," the key word is "specific."

The link I gave previously was merely to attract
attention to the fact that on issues which require
radical solutions that are likely to harm vested
economic and political interests are likely to be
looked upon as threats. In other words new ideas,
instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement they could offer,
were threats to those who had become comfortable in
their ideologies - and the way they did things. The
link was merely a suggestion to look at things in
another way - at the opportunities that could be
opened up for the improvement they could offer.

There are targeted concessions for industries that are emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE). For most exporters, the CT adds only pennies their cost-base by comparison with other costs and factors like exchange rates. The assertion that every cost penny counts, and only the weight of the CT penny will break the back of any failing small export business is spurious nonsense.

Regarding economic qualifications I'd listen to many others ahead of SM's authoritative assertions,

http://www.efic.gov.au/country/interviewsspeechesandpapers/2011speechesandpapers/Pages/Delving-into-the-effect-of-the-carbon-tax-on-Australian-exporters.aspx

Aluminium, cement and steel-making are the largest main energy intensive industries affected by a CT.

Aluminium has been discussed enough already at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5157

Cement-making gets the highest level of EITE assistance and steel-making, it can be argued is over-compensated http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/8aeed5f0/101_report_new_protectionism.pdf

My earlier post about domestically competing businesses raising prices to compensate for the tax is brushed aside by SM with the assertion that they will then lose customers to overseas online sales, as if that's a really huge deal and as if retail sales of goods is the only business in town. His authoritatively asserted superior economic qualifications seem to be applicable to only one side of a ledger

The CO2 tax is not aimed for best result if the object is to enable
alternative energy generation.
The main aim of the co2 tax is to increase the cost of electricity
generation.
What we need is to use our present cheap energy to manufacture the
alternative systems, whatever they turn out to be.
World coal will start depleting around 2025 according to most studies.
This will push up our coal prices if we continue to export it at the
present rate. However a more clever idea is to reduce or stop the
export of our coal because we have no idea at present how to produce
enough electricity 24/7 come windless and overcast weather which might
last for several weeks.
This would keep the AGW crowd happy as a lot less coal would be burnt.

If we knew how long it will take us to achieve the 24/365 outcome we
could adjust our exports to suit, but we don't.
Only the hot rocks system has any hope of 24/365 but we are not
making a strong enough effort in that field.
If we keep exporting our coal & natural gas we could end up burning
dollar notes to keep warm and have some light.

<< What we need is to use our present cheap energy to manufacture the alternative systems, whatever they turn out to be. >>

Absolutely, Bazz.

We should definitely reduce coal and gas exports and hold on to a large part of our reserves in the interests of future energy security.

These are two things that we should be doing in conjunction with a carbon tax.

The other major thing is to stop increasing the demand for energy! That is: stabilise our population!

The carbon tax is all well and good. But it is certainly not happening within a holistic regimen. These three other huge factors sit just totally at odds with it.

Coal companies are struggling. Apparently it's going to cost them $1 per tonne of coal they dig up and sell. How are they going to afford that? I can't understand why they are continuing to increase capital investment when there backs are clearly up against the wall as Tony Abbott has told us.

The aluminium industry will probably be hardest hit, considering how much electricity they consume. I can't understand why Alcoa was calling for an ETS a few years back! What were they thinking? Didn't they realise that with China refining alumina at a cheaper rate and undercutting them, that surely a carbon pricing scheme would destroy them? And i can't believe they've just signed a long term 400 million dollar haulage contract in WA. Don't they realise they're about to be squeezed to death by the toxic carbon tax like Tony said?

And all those foreign investors, pushing our dollar up. Haven't they heard we are introducing a carbon tax? don't they know our economy is on the brink of a giant carbon tax abyss? Sure, the economic credentials of Australia have never looked so good, but it's all smoke and mirrors by the clever Mr Swan, apparently. But strangely the investment keeps flowing in, like no-one is even taking heed of Mr Abbott's generous wisdom.

The carbon tax did it, ohyeah!

Oh, and a quick comment> RECHTUB, reduced emissions most definitely does not mean reduced productivity. In many cases, particularly fossil fuel energy production, reduced CO2/NOx emissions means greater combustion efficiency which means greater productivity. i.e. less fuel in for same energy output.

For example, Carbon tax gives extra incentive for Gas turbine operators to stick a heat recovery boiler on the end of their turbine exhaust, essentially increasing their electricity generation with no extra gas input as well as reducing final emissions to air. Many companies have just been waiting for the scheme to be implemented to maximise their credits.

David,

Instead of just spruiking the labor line, with sarcasm and half truths, perhaps you could reflect on some inconsistencies.

Alcoa did not call for an ETS but "Alcoa continues to support an emissions trading scheme that delivers reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and does not compromise the international competitiveness of Australian industry" i.e. calling for full compensation.

Below a $40 per ton carbon price, there is no incentive for large scale gas turbine power generation.

Gas turbines built for stand alone power generation are not suitable for heat recovery boilers. Those generating steam are built to have a lower air to gas ratio and hotter output (with a slight reduction in power generation efficiency).

LF,

The line I seem to be getting from you is that because the impact of the dollar exchange dwarfs the carbon tax, that it is insignificant or even non existent. For the mining industry with the present huge demand, growth is slowed but not stopped, and only a handful of marginal mines will close.

Outside the mining and mining support industry, the story is very different. Local retailers are competing with imports online and otherwise, and you only have to look at any shopping centre to see the unusually high number of empty shops.

The polls are clear, 2/3 believe that they will be worse off. and virtually no businesses believe that they will be better off. (except those supplying to the green's white elephants)

Assumptions in labor's modelling to 2020 with regards emission reduction ie CCS and gas generation are not happening, and emissions in 2020 are likely to be the same with a carbon tax as without.

oh dear david/quote..""can't understand..why Alcoa was calling for an ETS a few years back!""

duh..[free carbon credits]
you forget their ab-use of cheap[cut]. price energy
they sought a further advantage[just like the miners sought advantage]

just like some get subsidised fuel
some get free/govt subsidised babby sitting
they were just after the free govt lucre'

lol..""foreign investers""..for now
tomorrow reaping OUR harvest..[heard today..that royalties..on some of them frakking gas wells..donyt need to pay royalties FOR FIVE YEARS

add to that state govts building them free pipelines[lol infastructure]..but for export gain[for foreigners]
who have egsemptions tax free advantages..plus secret trust funds

how clean is that 'investment'..that steals that invested
to the peoples OF this bit of the commonwealth

Shadow Minister said:

"Gas turbines built for stand alone power generation are not suitable for heat recovery boilers."

Wow. Are you lying or just completely misinformed? I have my suspicions. Either way, you represent the Abbott party line very well.

Your statement is completely contrary to fact. You will find most gas turbine plants around the country are either already combined cycle plants or have the infrastructure and planning in place for such investment in the near future. Some examples:

http://www.originenergy.com.au/2081/Darling-Downs-Power-Station
http://www.originenergy.com.au/1376/Mortlake-Power-Station-Project
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/environment-assessment/projects/yallourn-gas-power-station
http://www.citicpacificmining.com/articles/latest-news/sino-iron-projects-first-gas-turbine-fires-up
http://www.truenergy.com.au/about/news/news.xhtml?newsitem=216

When you can generate the same amount of electricity with 40% less fuel and emissions, when is that unsuitable?

You also said:
"Below a $40 per ton carbon price, there is no incentive for large scale gas turbine power generation."

Carbon pricing is not designed to encourage more gas turbines which still spew out CO2 and N2O. It's to encourage innovation in alternatives and also in cleaning up traditional power generation technologies.

And I don't think there is need for further incentive for gas turbine investment. They are going up all over the place. I have one client with 160 turbines being constructed over the next 18 months.

I'm not spruking any party line. I'm just pro ETS and pro truth (which essentially by pure logic makes me anti Abbott).

SM, you write :"For the mining industry with the present huge demand, growth is slowed but not stopped, and only a handful of marginal mines will close.".....A weaselly, thi-end-of-the-wedge assertion, SM, but keep them coming. If there is a problem it may be for EITE industries in a few years when carbon credits convert to an ETS and subsidies and market prices readjust as well as an international emissions regime being further developed. People with neutral economic nouse reject any significant impact on mining by the CT. So do investors too judging by the big money going into mining.

You write, "Local retailers are competing with imports online and otherwise, and you only have to look at any shopping centre to see the unusually high number of empty shops." .....Ah yes, the carbon tax will effect more closures, of course. Could it be that consumers are a little anxious about global matters? Not a chance, it's something else Labor is doing wrong, even after having stimulated the economy during the GFC and the lowering of interest rates and generally high employment. Must be fear of a CT that's shutting shops! Retail is restructuring worldwide due to the internet, would the Mad Monk stop that or will all problems disappear with repeal of the CT?

You're incapable of conceding the simple point that domestically competing businesses raise prices to compensate themselves for rises in cost inputs, or is that just in relation to the CT? Throwing up furfies about overseas online sales and mysterious "otherwises" in your statement is just weaselly deflection. The same applies to your earlier assertion that income tax cut compensation for the CT being insufficient at higher incomes as having some huge effect on businesses. That's about distribution of compensation being higher than required at lower incomes and will do nothing to reduce overall consumption. Lexus sales shouldn't suffer.

You exaggerate minor matters, introduce half-truth and play pea-and-thimble to avoid having to concede a fact That's your mob's MO until the election, which I hope the Mad Monk is around to concede, oh yeah.

Luciferace & David Corbett.
You write as though business as usual will be the order of the day
except for some adjustment and rearrangement of costs.

How do you think emissions trading and the move away from fossil fuels
being legislated will survive in a permanent zero growth economy or
indeed a contracting world economy ?

In a levelling or contracting economy, without a carbon tax, emissions will naturally level out or contract. I expect you know this, Bazz, so where are you taking us?

David,

What a lot hubris!

I guess my engineering degree and years in designing and maintaining power systems must bow to your ability to use Google! I should have called you for the last combined cycle plant I designed.

The hotter the exhaust gas from gas turbine, the more energy a heat recovery boiler can extract and use. Stand alone generators (peak clipping or occasional use generators) use a higher air to gas ratio (similar to aircraft engines) to get the most power per unit of fuel. A combined cycle plant is designed to run continuously with a richer mixture, that while generating slightly less power per unit of fuel enables far more energy to be recovered by the boilers. The engines are not the same. You can stick a heat recovery boiler at the end of a stand alone generator, but you won't get much heat recovery.

LF,

When a business raises prices, unless everyone else raises the prices the same, you will lose business. With imports unaffected this is certainly the case.

I also see Alcoa who previously sucking up to Labor, needs a bail out to protect it from the carbon tax.

"When a business raises prices, unless everyone else raises the prices the same, you will lose business", yep, it's called competition, thank you. Stick to boilers.

Luciferase & David,
Perhaps I was not clear in my question.
I expected an explanation of how all the anti AGW programs etc
could survive in a zero growth world as CO2 emissions would continue.

To explain further, alternative energy systems require a significant
level of energy and manufacturing cpability.
This basically is a business as usual status, which we may not have.

It took a long time to get thru to you.

Stick to finger painting or whatever you do.

SM, what are you getting at?

The Braemar Gas Power stations are all stand-alone power generators, 200MW each turbine. They are all setup with the infrastructure for heat recovery boilers to be installed at a later date. They are all quick start-up turbines, from memory it takes about 20min to become steady @ 200MW.

The same for the mortlake power station, although I'm not sure what the output is from that plant.

These stand alone gas turbines have an exhaust temperature of >500'C. You're the engineer, what temperatures does one need to run a boiler?

This is not information I have from google, it's what I remember from being onsite.

While this precise argument is of minuscule importance in this discussion, I find it frustrating that you chose deliberate obfuscation to try and discredit someone presenting an opposing view to yours. Once again, Liberal through and through.

Bazz,
Are you saying a zero-growth economy must remain mono-dimensional, i.e. one industry can only grow if another declines? I can't answer the question if that is a condition. It's a tail wagging a dog.

Luciferase, If there is a fixed amount of energy available, or worse
a declining amount of energy then industry has to find ways to produce
using more manual labour or animal power or hopefully solar & wind.
The food industry would be a classical example of this.
However I imagine that food production would get a priority for energy.
That however means another industry must do with less.
So I guess your question;
i.e. one industry can only grow if another declines?
is correct.
Perhaps it should be considered as a rearrangement of priorities.

All this of course is dependant on there being no breakthrough in
alternative energy available for transport such as a major improvement
in power density of batteries and a major breakthrough in electrical
energy sources such as cold fusion or hot rocks.

Money is not a factor as it is only a convenient way to exchange
materials or energy and can be adjusted at will.

You said:It's a tail wagging a dog.

Energy is not the tail, everything else is !
Countries like Aus will with our good supplies of coal be able to keep
electricity on line and have the benefit of that energy a lot longer
than other countries. However we produce less than 50% of the oil we
use so we will need a major shift to electrical transport.
Some countries like China, Korea and India will be hit by this problem
sooner and harder than we will be and it might force them into
military adventures to overcome their shortages.

I'm not getting it, Bazz. Energy consumption is not limited by economic growth, it is simply commensurate with it, no growth = no increase in consumption, declining growth = declining consumption. The mix of energy sources seems irrelevant to this. What am I missing?

David,

For starters Braemar has 3 x 150MW turbines. The layout of the plant does not indicate that "all the infrastructure is in place for heat recovery boilers". The boilers, equipment etc are normally bigger than the turbines and equipment, and Braemar would takea not inconsiderable modification.

Small generation plants today use steam up to 550C so exhaust at 500C is of little use to standard modern designs. Flue gas after the boilers is typically >140C and so a small increase in exhaust gas temperature is of great benefit. The plant I have been involved in designing supplies electricity and low pressure steam to process plant, so the requirement for flue gas temp is not so critical, but even then is more efficient with higher exhaust temperature.

SM,

So when the Braemar 1 plant manager pointed at the area directly east of the turbines and said "this is where the heat recovery boilers will go", he was making it up? Hmmm...

And I suppose the Origin website for Mortlake operations is also lying about the turbines being converted to cogeneration.

And the base-load Darling Downs station is only pretending to be combined cycle?

And TruEnergy must be kidding themselves that they think it's suitable to make their 1000MW gas power station in the Latrobe valley combined cycle when it clearly is not suitable for stand alone power generation...

David,

Having a patch of land set aside does not qualify for "having all the required infrastructure in place."

I see 3 single stream gas turbines, scrubbers and stacks. The space for boilers, water purification, cooling, generation etc which probably cost more than the existing plant need space not allowed for in the existing streams.

It can be done at a price, if the energy recovery from the low temp gas is worthwhile.

Hey guys, get a room!
Just 5 more sleeps until the sky falls in.

Pollie pay rises? Oh Yeah http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/senator-lashes-out-as-pollies-given-another-5500-pay-rise/story-fndo3ewo-1226416182460

[Deleted for off topic.]