Carbon Tax

[cove]

Let's see how Wayne Swan's budget goes this year. He scored a Fail grade for 2011 as that was a horror story.We need a big dose of smaller Government and pretty soon as I don't want our kids to have to pay back these excessive budget deficits.

 

[drron]

The thing is this is principally due to the Labor government steering us well through the GFC (meaning rates didn't have to go so low as confidence was kept high) and now high resource prices and the interest rate from our success lifting the exchange rate higher. However, if the Resource super profits tax had been introduced this would have mitigated it somewhat, if we accept the self interested commentary that an increase in price of resources would reduce demand. Not that there's been any sign of that so far!

In any case, you're criticising Swan here, but I certainly don't see any indication that Abbott and co have any better idea of how to manage the economy or in particular address this issue. His policies would cause that exchange rate to be even higher.

So the dollars high because wayne swan steered us well through the GFC.
But under Abbott the dollar would be higher.applying the logic in your first paragraph suggests he would have better steered us through the GFC.

 

[odysseus]

So the dollars high because wayne swan steered us well through the GFC.
But under Abbott the dollar would be higher.applying the logic in your first paragraph suggests he would have better steered us through the GFC.

I haven't heard any commentary from Abbott on how he would have steered us through the GFC, so I have no idea whether it would have been good or bad. Based on what I have seen - the continual flip-flopping e.g. wanting a 'carbon cop' a month ago, and now complaining about one existing, and lack of vision, nor even much in the way of policies - I have my doubts, but couldn't say for sure.

The comment I made about him being anti-resource taxes at the moment doesn't relate and doesn't give any indication of how he would have handled the GFC. It's not possible to apply that as you suggest and make the claim that he would have done better.

 

[drron]

I haven't heard any commentary from Abbott on how he would have steered us through the GFC, so I have no idea whether it would have been good or bad. Based on what I have seen - the continual flip-flopping e.g. wanting a 'carbon cop' a month ago, and now complaining about one existing, and lack of vision, nor even much in the way of policies - I have my doubts, but couldn't say for sure.

The comment I made about him being anti-resource taxes at the moment doesn't relate and doesn't give any indication of how he would have handled the GFC. It's not possible to apply that as you suggest and make the claim that he would have done better.

I'm not claiming anything.Your post i quoted first made claims that were contradictory-re read my first post.You claimed abbott would have caused the $A to be higher and that it was Swan getting us through the GFC well that was the cause of the high dollar-you cant have it both ways.

 

[medhead]

This is rather good, says it all, really:
You shut your goddam_ carbon-taxin’ mouth | Heathen Scripture

Extensive quoting because I doubt some people will have the courage to actually read it. But I did leave off the bit about dying in a ditch.

Three days on from Julia Gillard’s policy announcement, and the most striking characteristic of the carbon tax debate is just how closely it resembles a dozen retards trying to %^&# a doorknob. The only apparent solution is a massive airdop of Xanax into our reservoirs, because really, everyone needs a few deep breaths and a spell in the quiet corner.

Far from being objective carriers of information, media outlets have been trying to manufacture furore. “Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax,” warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. “Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living.”

$9.90.

Cry me the mother^&*#ing Nile.

So, no big deal, I said to myself when the details were announced. Surely this’ll all blow over. And then, found myself more than a little surprised when a Herald-Sun commenter (one step above YouTube on the food-chain, I’ll admit) said “Somebody needs to assassinate Julia Gillard NOW before she totally destroys our way of life.”
Just… hold up a minute. Ten bucks a week? Our way of life? Aside from incitement to murder a head of government being ever so slightly illegal (and something the Hun mods should probably have picked up on), the response just doesn’t make any sense. Here is legislation that might make some things marginally more expensive. Probably not much. It isn’t going to drive industries offshore, because things like power generation and mining Australian resources kind of have to be done in Australia.

Ten bucks a week. Core values. Class war. Then, “Generous payments to those on low incomes and higher taxes for high income earners would anger hard-working Aussies.” Because, people on less than $110,000 don’t have to work hard. That’s why they get paid less! Scrubbing toilets is easy and only takes five minutes, while high-level boardroom execs spend 20-hour days chained to some kind of awful lunch machine being beaten with lobster foam.

So if you claim you can’t afford ten bucks a week, I call Shenanigans, with a healthy dash of You’re a D###. One dinner at the Flower Drum would make up your year’s liability in one hit. Genuinely struggling people will get compo anyway. But even they could afford it if they had to. Buy one less deck of Holiday 50s a week. Buy two less beers. Leave off the Foxtel subscription. Wear a franger, save half a mil. What the #### ever. Remember that you live in a country where drinkable water comes out of a tap inside your goddam_ house, and where the power runs 24 hours a day. This in itself is a goddam_ privilege,

 

[drron]

But its not only No news that exaggerate or tell little white lies.I suppose most of you have seen the Caton/Blanchett ad.If not here it is-
‪Cate Blanchett Michael Caton Climate Change Ad Vision‬‏ - YouTube

And Julia complains of the anti carbon tax ads!
First CO2 does not cause smog as the ad suggests.Reducing the emissions of CO2 will not clear our skies.
And why does the power station in the background happen to be the decommissioned UK Battersea power station?

 

[medhead]

But its not only No news that exaggerate or tell little white lies.I suppose most of you have seen the Caton/Blanchett ad.If not here it is-
‪Cate Blanchett Michael Caton Climate Change Ad Vision‬‏ - YouTube

And Julia complains of the anti carbon tax ads!
First CO2 does not cause smog as the ad suggests.Reducing the emissions of CO2 will not clear our skies.
And why does the power station in the background happen to be the decommissioned UK Battersea power station?

Ah, but power stations do cause smog and I assume the battersea power station was partially responsible for the great smog in London in the 1950s that killed thousands. At a guess. It's called a symbol. Symbolism is very important to getting across a message. Besides so what if it is Battersea power station, what's the point? It is clearly only used in a symbolic way and is clearly not there as an actual example.

 

[drron]

Ah, but power stations do cause smog and I assume the battersea power station was partially responsible for the great smog in London in the 1950s that killed thousands. At a guess. It's called a symbol. Symbolism is very important to getting across a message. Besides so what if it is Battersea power station, what's the point? It is clearly only used in a symbolic way and is clearly not there as an actual example.

Ah no.What you see coming out is water vapour not smog any longer so a very misleading symbol.Although to me it symbolises the mistruths that both sides put out.
And of course since we got rid of smog and got rid of all that particulate matter reflecting the sun's rays back the earth has got warmer and so we will be in much more of a pickle than when we had smog according to the experts.

 

[medhead]

The water vapour comes from the cooling towers not the stacks. So a bit different. They love showing cooling towers for nuclear power as well.

 

[drron]

The water vapour comes from the cooling towers not the stacks. So a bit different. They love showing cooling towers for nuclear power as well.

Stop playing devil's advocate.before you know it you will be turning into one-devil that is.

 

[odysseus]

I'm not claiming anything.Your post i quoted first made claims that were contradictory-re read my first post.You claimed abbott would have caused the $A to be higher and that it was Swan getting us through the GFC well that was the cause of the high dollar-you cant have it both ways.

I didn't claim any such thing that Abbott would have caused the AUD to be higher back then - when you're claiming I did, so you _are_ claiming something. I said Abbott's arguments of late i.e. post GFC, if they were followed through would cause that. It is his 'logic' that is contradictory.

 

[drron]

I didn't claim any such thing that Abbott would have caused the AUD to be higher back then - when you're claiming I did, so you _are_ claiming something. I said Abbott's arguments of late i.e. post GFC, if they were followed through would cause that. It is his 'logic' that is contradictory.

So Wayne Swan causing the dollar to go higher was good then but if Tony Abbott did it now it would be bad?
In fact neither proposition is correct.The Reserve bank should be given most of the ? credit for the higher dollar.

 

[Moody]

Perhaps we could get back on topic

Not every conservative leader has their head up where the sun don't shine :- Dear Julia, you have it right

 

[Durin's Bane]

This is rather good, says it all, really:
You shut your goddam_ carbon-taxin’ mouth | Heathen Scripture

Extensive quoting because I doubt some people will have the courage to actually read it. But I did leave off the bit about dying in a ditch.

How does it 'say it all'? His post and his comments in the lower section clearly show he's a left wing loon. And you're holding his post up as 'rather good'?

 

[medhead]

How does it 'say it all'? His post and his comments in the lower section clearly show he's a left wing loon. And you're holding his post up as 'rather good'?

It makes the point very well about people earning $100000+ who somehow think $10 a week is going to destroy them. As for left wing loon, not sure how you get that. Maybe try quoting something rather than making hand waving claims. If you can get away from the lobster foam beating for long enough.

 

[connieguy]

Some time ago, my statement that the rapidly warming Arctic was behind the cold weather being experienced in the Northern Hemisphere was rejected by many here. Here is some information which supports that statement:

More cold and snowy winters to come in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America

Please note the statement:

"Irreversible change

The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This is known as Arctic amplification -- a much debated phenomenon at the IPY-OSC, where 2400 polar scientists have gathered to discuss the huge amount of research and new findings which are the direct result of the International Polar Year.


The changes are happening a great deal faster than the scientific community expected. Given the recent reduction of the area of multi-year sea ice and reduced ice thickness, it is unlikely that the Arctic can return to its previous condition.


"The changes are irreversible," says Dr Overland."

Note this was published 15 June 2010. Since then the loss of Arctic Ice Cap volume has accelerated even faster, with Arctic warming and ice melting at 3 times the expected rate.

So again, the Carbon Tax is not going to fix this. It is too little and too late. The Greens need to wake up and understand taxing carbon is not what is needed to ensure Australia can continue to support our life style in a world were Global Warming and Climate Change is now unstoppable.

As soon as the politicians change tack and start to talk about securing sufficient water and food to support the Australian people, the better. This time we can't wait 20 years to find out we waited too long to start doing something to ensure our cities have sufficient water from desal plants and thus we can allocate all our catchment water to growing food. We can handle increasing temperatures and can even handle increasing sea level in say 100 years but we can't handle not having enough water to use domestically, commercially, industrially and to grow food with. Had the La Nina not returned, Oz would be in a very serious situation, water wise, right now. La Nina will leave, El Nino will return and we need to be ready to handle a very dry Oz.

Bob Brown if you are listening, you are going in the wrong direction. It is too late to reduce carbon emissions as soon Methane released from the Arctic will be more powerfull than CO2. While we may be able to stop some CO2, we can't stop the Methane as we can't stop the Arctic warming and the ice cap melting.

Time to think again and to work out how to protect Australia from water and food shortages.

 

[connieguy]

What upsets me is the climate scientists now know that what is happening in the Arctic is irreversible, yet you see nothing in the popular press or from the "Greenies" about this. It is as if some are saying, "We have worked so long and hard to get CO2 reduction happening, how can we now turn around and say we were wrong, it is happening many times quicker than our worst predictions, it is not stoppable and there is now no point in reducing CO2 emissions".

Almost like admitting the pro carbon lobby was correct (but not for their reasons) and the Greenies were wrong (again not for their reasons).

Anyway it is too late to spend money on reducing carbon. Time to spend money on securing Australia's water and food future.

 

[Limewood]

Wall Street Journal has its slant on how stupid this carbon tax is...

 

[connieguy]

Wall Street Journal has its slant on how stupid this carbon tax is...

The big ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea knows nothing about politics nor does it care about us humans.

It just continues to accelerate it's melting and loss of ice volume due to increased Arctic air and sea temperatures. Soon like a glass of single malt Scotch with a block ice cooling it down, the ice will be gone in summer and like the glass of Scotch, the temperature of the liquid will rapidly rise to room temperature. For the glass of Scotch, that may be OK but for the Arctic Sea, the ocean bed and permafrost Methane stores that will start to melt and release Methane, that is not good.

So yes it is stupid. Why? Because it assumes GW in the Arctic can be fixed and is attempting to fix the cause and not make the inevitable end result more livable.

 

[medhead]

The big ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea knows nothing about politics nor does it care about us humans.

It just continues to accelerate it's melting and loss of ice volume due to increased Arctic air and sea temperatures. Soon like a glass of single malt Scotch with a block ice cooling it down, the ice will be gone in summer and like the glass of Scotch, the temperature of the liquid will rapidly rise to room temperature. For the glass of Scotch, that may be OK but for the Arctic Sea, the ocean bed and permafrost Methane stores that will start to melt and release Methane, that is not good.

So yes it is stupid. Why? Because it assumes GW in the Arctic can be fixed and is attempting to fix the cause and not make the inevitable end result more livable.

Isn't cooling of the north atlantic via the influx of cold water from the melted icecap suppose to interrupt the gulfstream, which warms north europe/northern america, and lead to colder temperatures in that area?