Labor's "ETS" is actually nothing of the sort.

An ETS is meant to put a cap on emissions, and business trade permits. This grotesque version in reality means that businesses can buy endless credits from shonky foreign dealers at a price set by EU bureaucrats, with the money going not into tax revenue or emission reductions at home.

What Kevin has admitted is that the carbon tax is hurting Australian jobs and raising the cost of living. Kevin's answer is to change the name and reduce the price.

SM, before entering any discussion do you concur with the meaning of ETS at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme ?

Furthermore, let's assume that carbon abatement is a necessary thing and that there are 3 approaches on the table, "Direct Action" which is yet to be costed and budgeted, carbon pricing, and an ETS.

Firstly, are you saying carbon pricing is preferable to an ETS? Why?

Secondly, you would undoubtedly say "Direct Action", is the best approach. Why?

Please answer both questions, if you would

Yours truly,
Dorothy Dix

Kev the shonky builder appears to believe that if he makes enough noise and runs around excitedly rearranging the furniture
perspective buyers will overlook the termites in the floor, the mold on the walls and botched job he made of the ceiling --don't buy it!

Kev the Builder
Can he fix it
Kev the Builder
thinks, he can

Kev the Builder
Do we hire him
Kev the Builder
NOT A-GAIN!

Despite the rhetoric of the Coalition -
the Prime Minister's move to a floating carbon tax is
not an admission of failure. He's bringing forward by
12 months something Labor always intended to do -
move to an Emissions Trading Scheme.

This has now been done as a clever political move
to garner votes prior to the election. The news channels
and social media has gone viral reporting the news.
And it appears to be working in the PM's favour much
to the alarm of the Coalition.

That's why the quibbling now.

Ah, politics - the art of perceptions.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbott-now-playing-away-20130716-2q2nv.html

Dorothy,

I am perfectly aware of what an ETS (or cap and trade) is, I am also aware of how far from the definition of an ETS Labor's floating carbon tax is.

As the supply of carbon credits is very large with comparison to the Aus market, the availability of "credits" is not limited, so there is no incentive to trade between companies in Aus. So if there is no cap and no trade, there is no ETS, and a huge outflow of cash to shonky carbon traders, starting at several billion p.a.

Essentially we will move from a price fixed in Aus to a price fixed in the EU.

I have a serious problem with an ETS in that the price is unpredictable, and any rapid fluctuation in input prices is damaging for business.

A fixed price that is in line with our competitors would be best. Presently that would be about 50c /ton. A price significantly above this would simply shift emissions and production to low taxing countries (as has happened with our aluminium smelting)

Direct action as Labor has done with the renewable target, solar panels, wind farms etc have been a huge waste of money. Intelligent investment in gas turbines, and nuclear would drastically reduce emissions at a far lower cost.

....This has now been done as a clever political move
to garner votes prior to the election.

Yes Lexi, and the game of winning votes continues, as if that's all that matters, winning votes.

Let's not worry about anything else, at least not until after the election, let's just focus wholly and solely on winning votes.

For me, this whole ETS move is purely aimed at taking focus off the most important issue of the day, Kevin's boats.

He knows that what ever he does he is on a hiding to nothing when it comes to the boats, because very few people will forget that it was he who caused the mess in the first place.

Even if by some miracle he does come up with a solution, nothing, and I do mean NOTHING will return the BILLIONS of TAX PAYERS DOLLARS his brain fart has pissed away.

If for no other reason what so ever, and there are some others, he should never ever be forgiven for the mess he has brought upon us, the suffering by our own people with cut backs and the lives of the poor soles that have been lost, chasing the glimmer of hope he provided them.

Shame on him! And shame on anyone who thinks he has earned the right to hold the honored role of running our country.

If he were a CEO, he would be campaigning from prison, and that's the plain hard truth of the matter.

Dear rehctub,

It's not surprising that voters are demanding answers
now - and thank goodness for that. Politicians will
have to do more than just coast along.

Here's two links that may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2012/labors-change-of-menu-leaves-the-coalition-stewing-20130709-2pobv.html

And -

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbott-now-playing-away-20130716-2q2nv.html

Well done SM!
Classic Liberal tactic, trying to turn things upside down and claim a positive is a negative.
You and I understand Kevin 07 wanted ETS and only that.
He shared that wish with your future leader Turnbull.
Classic but old tactic.
It over looks the fact recent babbleings from Abbott have positioned your side way out to the right of reality on this subject.
Why not try his targeting of FB tax?
His claim the filling out the log books for three months once every year, are worth fanning the fires with surely.
Boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
And I have no room for doubt in claiming on this issue your mob sheds votes to keep faith with those already committed to you.

Labor has said the carbon price will be set in Europe, means it's coming down and so will energy costs. That message, along with how the 4-ish bil to do this will not come from income tax increases so we've all kicked a goal, is not accompanied by detail. All we know of is it's costed and budgeted, putting it a point clear of "Direct Action".

I am unsure about what the transitioning to the EUETS involves , precisely, and I await details along with the business community http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/business-waiting-ets-detail-071309086.html Like SM, I am concerned that the cost of permits should feed into revenue.

Until I know more I think I agree with SM (gulp) that we should have a fixed carbon price reflective of a periodic (monthly?) review of the EU market.

I prefer where we are already (~$24/tonne), with exporters given carbon credits while domestically we raise the incentive towards fossil fuel alternatives well ahead of the apparent European rate. But that's not going to win an election, is it now.

Dot

Funny how the ALP is using "the power of the free market" to provide a solution while the neo-cons are using a purely "socialist approach" and screwing taxpayers to bribe corporate polluters.

What's the story with the "Green Army" anyway? Are they a work-for-the-dole scheme and what are the 15,000 of them supposed to do?

SM, SPQR, just a thought.
The horse feathers you flutter around in this thread and the inability to ask yours selfs a question.
Why.
Why has your leaders polling turned to mud at the bottom of a great fall, or have he bottomed out yet.
If Turnbull is the invisible man for you both a new leader?
Gillard could restore your team, say take you to the giddy heights of 40% approval in preferred PM?

SM is right about the ETS, I have read many comment on how this scheme advantages rich countries.

Already the dud has reinforced why I loathe him through his few policies.

In the end, if he is what the battlers and many tossers want, the dud is what they will get.

I think this time, the masses, albeit still minority, have got it wrong, but I suppose for many, a football competition is enough to celebrate as Aust continues its decline, probably under both parties given their policy options.

It is shown that if Turnbull was at the helm kev would be in the backblocks.
Kev is up there because people don't like Abbott, so it's in your corner.
Don't worry about policy it's Abbott that is going to cause your downfall.

Governing is hard, but both parties are as good and useless as each other with their various strengths and weaknesses.

But I am over it; what choice to I have, a vote for the ALP and the dud, or Sophie Mirabella. Depresses me thinking about it

<<what choice to I have, a vote for the ALP and the dud, or Sophie Mirabella. Depresses me thinking about it>>

If the truth be known I am no great fan of Abbot myself.However, whenever I am in doubt as to which way to swing, I picture Sarah Hansen-Young as a cabinet Minister in a ALP-Green hung parliament.

It's a sure fire cure.

Ala Woody Allen, I never want to vote for any party that might conceivably accede to having Sarah Hansen-Young as a cabinet minster.

The way I see it Turnbull is just the liberal version of KRudd in the blue team.

Good conman/spruiker, very opinioned & arrogant, but rather thick, & unable to use others ability. Either of them are sure to be a catastrophe.

I can see no reason to vote for the B grade copy of this type in Turnbull, when we have the totally hopeless Rudd to vote for.

I still find it amazing that so few can see through these pretenders & realize what no hoppers they are.

Well if the coalition have any chance of winning this election it will have to be with Turnbull.
At the moment we have a dummy posing as a would be pollitition.
A mutant and losing ground at an accelerating speed.
Let sanity prevail.

The big question around this ETS is this;
The money that will be used to buy credits from European traders will
add against our balance of trade.
Eventually there will be some Australian originating credits but it
seems inevitable that the majority forever will originate from Europe.

This will be a permanent non productive drain on our economy.
Show me where I am wrong.

Bazz, we don't know how this will work, yet. My only guess is our gov't will be enabled by the EU to sell credits into the market and join our cap or part thereof to the EU's while our emitters will buy credits in their market.

I really don't see our emitters handing money over for EU credits without full compensation by the EU to us.

I don't buy the title of this thread. What is clear is the LNP has done everything in it's power to misrepresent carbon pricing, starting with calling it a tax and ending with never, ever acknowledging the attached compensatory aspects. All it has done is to throw muck.

"Direct Action" has yet to be spelled out, costed and budgeted, yet SM supports it. On what basis, may I ask again, rather than hearing a poo pooing of Labor's expenditures?

Interesting article in New Matilda
which hopefully will add something to this discussion.
And the comments section shows quite varied points of view
illustrating the wide political divide that exists in
our community on this issue. One of the points being
made is that "with the floating price comes a key carbon
policy - the emissions cap."

We're told that, "under the fixed price scheme - Australia's
carbon pollution wasn't capped. Emissions reductions were to
be achieved by a reasonably high carbon price, starting at $23
a tonne, that would then transition to a floating price and a
cao in 3 years. By removing the start of the floating carbon
price Kevin Rudd also moves forward the start of an
economy wide emissions cap."

It's worth a read:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/18/rudd-makes-right-move-carbon

Thanks to Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne Joe Hokey and our own mirror of them all Shadow Minister.
Thinking Australians have every right to feel insulted.
Abbott [could have been any off the above] just twisted the truth and baited us all.
His subject was the proposed closer watch to be kept on cars and personal use by those who have company work cars.
I filled in such log books under the Prime Minister ship off J W Howard.
So why feel insulted?
By their words and action the opposition thinks we understand only the fear not the truth.
Under Abbott,s training front bencher,s are staying away from truth and throwing good politics away, as unneeded for us fools.
Not so.
We,the thinkers, let me assure you live on both sides.
And we have long ago seen Abbott for what he is.
This mornings poll the one showing Turnbull could turn Liberals from marginal, to landslide victory, can not be said to be Labor driven.
But it is evidence my view Abbott,s advisers have let him down badly.
Stuck in the Negativity grove he sheds votes and should find a way to make creditable comment, not insult every thinker.

Lexi,

LOL You do go for socialist sources.

Much better than that bourgeois MSM you claim.

What greatly diminishes Rudd's credibility on anything is that he refuses to call back Parliament to be accountable for the statements and commitments he is making. It is all fluff, but the costly millions being taken from TAXPAYERS' money are real.

Your Mr Rudd is apparently the fellow who leaked to Laurie Oakes during Gillard's 2010 election campaign, to sabotage Gillard's campaign. Along with the treacherous Greens, Rudd was disloyal to his own leader for years, never giving Gillard clear air to market her initiatives. For years every interview began with a question about Kevin Rudd.

Rudd is just winging it as usual, promoting himself and making promises to other countries that he may not be in a position to keep. A large rump of the Labor caucus hates his guts and would overturn him and his policies at the very first chance they get.

How long can they ignore Turnbull 73% to 19% Abbott has lost it.
When they start saying we won't change now, you had best look behind you.
The people have voted. What they need is Turnbull, and then get rid of all the Howard hangeroners, like Bishop Payne hockey and make a fresh start, before it's too late.

Hey, otb, why don't you start your own thread "I hate Gilla...er.. Short...er...Rudd" to inhabit and stop soiling others with your tiresome mantra of hate.

This thread is about carbon (dioxide) so please do rack off, dear chap, and also stop stalking Lexi rather than playing the ball.

Dear Luciferase,

I've made it quite clear many times that I do prefer
to use independent media sources like New Matilda and
Independent Australia to name just two because there
aren't that many alternatives in the barren
Australian media landscape. My aim is to challenge and
provoke people into looking at issues from a different
perspective. However, I realise that this will not
be acceptable to everyone, especially those who tend
to see all discussions through a fixed ideological
viewfinder. I have been accused of all sorts of
things - but none as persistent and nasty as those
recently.

I Thank You for coming to my defence in this particular
case. That was gracious of you and much appreciated.

Here is another link that may be more acceptable:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-axes-carbon-tax-in-favour-of-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6n6-1226680043190

I hold great hope that the ranters here are not the average Australian voter.
The hung parliament bought out the worst in us all.
And a tendency to ignore truth and just hate the other side.
We have, ignore it at your peril seen a landslide of change in just weeks.
And as others said here, Abbott,s fall.
Our country, and his own party, are better for that.
He no one else turned the Liberal party in to a party very much like the National Party.
A party many think of as, well, lets be honest , a party not able to control its shoot first then review the evidence one.
Failure?
A failure is clear here that failure right or wrong is far more want action on climate change than not.
Too that Abbott,s persona is rapidly causing him and others to understand his leadership is not forever.

Lexi,

We are well aware that you prefer only fringe blogs that echo your uncritical view of labor and the greens.

The floating carbon tax that labor has misnamed the ETS neither caps emissions nor encourages trading, it is simply a carbon tax the price of which is determined by others, and who share the tax revenue.

Rudd is going to try and recover the revenue by using the aid budget to deport boat people to PNG. Lexi, arn't you glad to be a labor supporter?

SM,

Again you are wrong. I do not prefer "fringe" blogs.
I prefer sources that don't have any political agenda.
That don't have factual errors, and misconceptions,
that don't give out misinformation. MSM is
notoriously narrow - and usually gives the same
predictable views. I feel obliged to correct this
misinformation. It's an occupational hazard. I therefore -
do quote from a wide variety of sources. I do
prefer quality journalism and supporting writers and
editors who deserve to be acknowledged for their time,
research, and effort. The sources I quote from do not
have a political agenda and do give a variety of
opinions as for example, Graham Young does on this forum.
You on the other hand only quote from opinions of MSM -
news sources that agree with yours., - predominantly
from The Australian. I have yet to see
you say anything critical about the party you so
adamantly support and promote on this forum and yet
you've got the cheek to criticise me. You can't be
taken seriously, old chap.

I've also stated that I am not a member of the Labor Party,
never have been. I prefer to vote for policies rather than
a party - it is for that reason that I will not vote
Liberal as long as Mr Abbott remains leader of the party.
Malcolm Turnbull is a different story.

I am amazed that you still continue to criticise the
Prime Minister after what's been achieved in such a short
time since he's been back. Surely you must be pleased with
his success in the deal that has been made with PNG.
Go ahead and admit it. Allow yourself that pleasure.

@Lexi,

<<Again you are wrong. I do not prefer "fringe" blogs.
I prefer sources that don't have any political agenda.>>

<<The sources I quote from do not
have a political agenda>>

And you regularly cite/link us to "New Matilda"!
You have got to be joking.
New Matilda is one of the most left loaded sites on the net.

ROFLAO

Dear SPQR,

New Matilda always gives a wide variety of opinions,
even in their comments sections. Opinions that are
thoroughly researched. You may not agree with everything
that is written - but you certainly cannot brush it
aside and label it simply because it doesn't agee with your
viewpoint. To do that is simply ignorant and illogical.
And New Matilda is not the only source that I reference.
Check my posting record. Unlike those who only quote
from right-wing sources. As I stated previously - my aim
is to challenge and provoke - and make people think
just a little from their one track minds.
Obviously I don't always succeed.

Lexi, "I've made it quite clear many times that I do prefer
to use independent media sources like New Matilda and
Independent Australia"

In preference to 'MSMs' that you reckon are not independent like The Canberra Times, The Economist or the Australian Financial Review.

Have you considered that you just look for the fodder that confirms your world view?

Then you post it with pained instructions and directions for the bovine herd (sic) who inexplicably don't always see things your way? LOL

I would not have any objection to using aid money on people being trafficked. At least we can say it is being spent in the right direction.
The total bill should come from aid money, and that includes the set up of these island camps.
Abbott's balloon has been pricked. No doubt it will be a busy weekend.

onthebeach,

I'd like to think that
my professional training is better than that.
Librarians are not in the business of telling
people what to think or of censoring material.
Their responsibility is not to deny, but to add,
enrich, stimulate and amplify.

Dear Lexi,

<< my professional training...[as a] Librarian>>

And now you've gone and shattered my image of you--I had you pegged as a professional comedian-darn!

doog, "I would not have any objection to using aid money on people being trafficked"

That is big of you considering that it is TAXPAYERS' money. The money has been extracted compulsorily from Australian workers, most of whom are on very modest wages and working in difficult conditions. They expect government to give priority to those essential services that are the fundamental to why we have government in the first place.

As for "people being trafficked", the PM Mr Rudd, the Foreign Minister, Mr Carr and Labor government are saying they are economic migrants who buy expensive boat tickets from travel agents with the objective of bull(bleep)ing and browbeating the Australian government into giving them citizenship and family reunion.

That is 'Wonderful Centrelink' forever and two fingers to the real refugees. For many there is no personal risk, just put one of the kids on board. Plenty more kids and cash to try again if necessary, apparently.

'Dr No', the innumerate Penny Wong underestimated the cost of 'asylum seekers' who cost billions more than she anticipated. She also forgot that it always was taxpayers' money, the government has none of its own, and the taxpayers would like to see it estimated and spent properly, for example on those homeless who are looking cold these nights.

Dear SPQR,

Me - a professional comedian?

Close. And very perceptive of you.

Because -

Librarians do have to have a sense of
humour. Afterall they deal with members of
the public such as yourself.

BTW: they also happen to
be - novel lovers.

Lexi, I doubt there is anyone more professional on this site than you :)
Take no notice of SPQR (Small Personality, Quick Ranter) , as he is obviously jealous !

Kevin's floating carbon tax has taken a second billing now, next to the proposed changes re salary packaged cars, and sending all asylum seekers to PNG.
He is really stooping lower and lower in his desperate attempt to retain the top job.
The ETS will be the least of our worries...

Still, anything is better than Abbott in the top job.

Dear Suse,

I love this poem of Emily Dickinson's:

"He ate and drank the precious words
His spirit grew robust
He knew no more that he was poor
Or that his frame was dust
He danced along the dingy ways
And this bequest of wings
Was but a book
What liberty
A loosened spirit brings!"

As for what the Prime Minister is trying to do?
Fingers-crossed that something good will result
out of all this that will satisfy even the most
harshest of critics. It's amazing what can be
achieved if people work together.

Lexi,

You say blaming is easy, so is recklessly posting untruths.

The New Matilda is unashamedly and consistently far left wing. It provides a slanted and poorly researched opinion on many issues by independent authors with no fact check whatsoever. The IA is similar.

Both NM and IA are sufficiently fruity and cater to the minuscule readership sufficiently narrow minded to shy away from genuine criticism.

SM,

Julian Burnside wrote an article, "Better Media is
Good For Democracy." In it he states:

"Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream media and the jungle of the internet
need a place where national but diverse views
can be found on matters of enduring importance.
New Matilda is such a place. As is Independent Australia.
It would be difficult to agree with every view
expressed in the columns of New Matilda, or
IA, but it would be equally difficult to disagree with them
all and it would be impossible to criticise any
of them as irrational or foolish."

New Matilda has had contributors the likes of
Julian Burnside, Antony Loewenstein, Bruce Haigh,
Andrew Bartlett, just to name a few.

New Matilda is a community-supported media, owned by
Cordell Media Pty Ltd. A company which is not aligned
with any political party.

Just from the comments sections alone - one gets a
wide selection of views. The same goes for Independent
Australia. Still, to each his own. If you don't like
the sources that I cite - you are under no obligation
to read them.

Lexi,

If you are going to "quote" from Julian Burnside, it is dishonest to modify his words to suit your agenda. As a librarian you should know better.

NM and IA are not publications nor news media, they are blogs upon which certain individuals post their opinion pieces without review nor fact checking. The better articles are selective with the truth, many simply avoid it.

Both publications while not directly affiliated with any party, all contributors are far left wing and provide a severely one sided opinion. While as you say, anyone is free to read your links or not, they are also free to associate your credibility with other fruity posters.

SM,

New Matilda and Independent Australia are part of the
independent media in this country and although
you may not approve of some of their articles
don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that
you really believe that all of the articles are biased,
irrational, or foolish. People like Julian Burnside
are highly admired, as are writers like Antony Loewenstein
(who got his break with New Matilda).
I can understand it would
be difficult to agree with every view that's expressed,
but as Burnside stated - it would be equally difficult
to disagree with them all. Without Independent media in
this country we would get a very narrow, limited, biased,
points of view. And BTW - I do quote from other sources.
Check my posting record. New Statesman, The Age, Sydney
Morning Herald, New York Times, Australian
Financial Review, various government agencies, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, various books, and so on.

A democracy only works when it has a wide variety of
media choices and not only ones that are owned by a select
group - controlling news and information - and presenting only
one point of view.

And as for me being a "fruity" contributor?
Well - fruit creates many delicious jams.
But a cactus is simply full of pricks!

Lexi,

There is not one author you have mentioned that is not significantly left of center politically. Comparatively the Australian, whose staff are more than 50% Labor or greens supporters, and has columnists from all political persuasions, can claim to be genuinely centrist, the NM and IA, however, are orbiting way on the fringes. I have yet to see an article in these blogs that is even vaguely centrist.

Secondly, the Newscorp and fairfax papers do not allow anything to be published without scrutiny by independent fact checkers, something that NM and IA clearly could do with.

If you look hard enough you will always find a nutty blog that will espouse any view you want. Quoting them does you no credit. While you have expanded your repertoire, you still mostly quote from these nutty blogs.

SM,

It's obvious that you're not bothered
at all by the facts.

But even you must admit that any publication
that can write in depth investigative articles
like, "Why Andrew Bolt is not an imbecile,"
or telling us that Tony Abbott's ears make
him look like a taxi cab with both doors open,
is at least worth a glance. ;-)

Lexi,

If facts bothered me, I would escape to the NM or IA to get away from them.

I am not a fan of those on the extremes whether Bolt or Jones on one side, or those in NM or IA.

SM,

Your comments suggest that you never read your own
posts, or dwell on your own history of misrepresentation
and distortion, and your refusal to countenance alternative
views of politics is therefore the way you play the game.
Your condemnation of "ideological affiliations" of
independent media is as essential to your game as
cricket requiring a bat and a ball.

So what is this topic about again ?

Lexi,

Your comments suggest that you never read your own posts, or dwell on your own history of misrepresentation and distortion. Your refusal to countenance alternative views of politics is therefore the way you try to play the game.

Your reliance on fluffy opinion pieces on blogs with narrow agendas is an indicator of the poverty of your opinions.

As LM was saying, this thread is about the farcical floating carbon tax that Labor misnames an ETS.

SM,

I'm well aware of the subject of this thread
but it wasn't me who diverted it. I merely
responded to the criticism of giving New Matilda
as a link on the subject and tried to explain
why I chose that link. However the pots
always gang up when it comes to calling out the
kettle.

Here is the excellent link once again for those
interested:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/18/rudd-makes-right-move-carbon

Lexi,

Your idea of an excellent link is a factually devoid fluff piece by a left wing activist.

This floating carbon tax is temporarily lower than the fixed carbon tax, with the idiotic effect of $bns of tax revenue syphoned off to the EU.

SM,

As Poirot pointed out to me on another thread -
we all realise that you find it difficult to
make sense of anything that hasn't passed through
the MSM colon.

However, she's right, I do get much enjoyment in
delivering alternative viewpoints and trying to
broaden narrow vistas like yours.
I shall continue to do precisely that old chap,
so get used to it!

Cheers.

What is all this about $ billions siphoned off to EU. We have carbon credits here, i sure they will be for sale at the right price.
Then again that came from SM, anything to make mountains out of mole holes Just like Abbott telling the smugglers to overrun NG.
There is not much coming out of the coalition, maybe they are having a meeting. Abbott has a troubled look about him lately, i wonder what it could be.

Lexi,

Drug taking is an alternative lifestyle, Neo nazis have an alternative political viewpoint, as do communists, all with narrow view points. While you wear your "alternative" badge with pride, it gives you no intellectual kudos.

NM and IA are alternative, their viewpoints are about as narrow as it gets.

SM,

Is that right?

I don't agree.

But then I suppose you'll find something wrong with the
following:

http://newmatilda.com/our-contract-with-manus

Or perhaps it will somehow suit your "objective"
sensibility in this case.

Hope you don't mind if I post this link here - as the subject matter is on "climate".

Care for a paddle?

http://www.livescience.com/38347-north-pole-ice-melt-lake.html

Lexi,

The "News" that the contract for an overseas detention centre recognises that it is more difficult to provide the same level of service as a mainland detention centre is as banal as discovering that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

P.

The subject is "carbon tax"

So sorry, SM.

A thousand pardons (and all that)

Whodathunk the Arctic melting had anything to do with the need for a carbon tax.

My mistake.

Shadow Minister: "The subject is "carbon tax" "

Thanks, mate, I was just wondering. But in fairness to Poirot, I suppose there might be a very indirect link between the annual melting of sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean, and an Australian carbon tax. I just can't stand seeing those polar bears trying to jump further and further from ice-floe to ice-floe as they melt, it's so cruel.

Where's that bloody hanky ?

Never mind, Joe, it's not all bad.

I just had a vision of Loudmouth jumping to and fro on the disappearing bergs, sloshing around in the melt with only his sarcasm to keep him afloat.

Made my day!

: )

And Poirot as an Orca, just waiting for this floppy, over-weight, aged bear as it vainly tries to get from one to the other - scary !

You betcha!

Dear Poirot,

It's been a pleasure sharing cyberspace with you.
I'm taking a bit of a break.

Why thank you, Lexi - and allow me to return the compliment.

Enjoy your break : )

Poirot and Lexi,

So which one of the tag-team is in the ring now ? Orca or pussy-cat ?

Joe

P,

Without some global agreement and action at least by more than a tiny fraction of the world's polluters, the carbon tax is frivolous and the melting of the arctic ice has nothing to do with whether Aus has a fixed, floating or no carbon tax.

On topic:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/koukoulas-our-wealth-has-only-grown-since-the-carbon-tax/4846060#auspol

".....since the price on carbon came into effect, more than half a trillion dollars has been added to the combined value of housing and stocks listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. That is $500,000,000,000.00, or the equivalent of $22,000 for every man, woman and child, all of which has accrued in just over a year.

And this half a trillion dollar does not include dividends, in the case of stocks, or actual and imputed rent on dwellings. Dividend payments on stocks over that time are around an additional $65 billion or so."

P,

Please tell me that you are not trying to say that because the stock market rose from historic lows that the carbon tax is OK? That would really be feeble.

How much has global emissions dropped since then?