Advertisement

Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By 5 May 2012 150

Are different arms & factions of the feds talking to each other? One lot who weighed up the carbon tax politics clearly felt that we’re a safe enough locality to add li’l ACTEW to the Clean Energy “dirty list”. Can it be a coincidence that this will hit supposed safe-Labor-seat voters in the guts?

Confusingly, another arm of the gubmint apparently decided we were wavering vote-wise and in need of pork-barrelling, hence the Manuka Oval lights announcement the other day.

Here’s the regulator’s punishment list.

So, fellow average-income-earners-not-getting-any-compensation, get set for extra nasties and carbon tax cost imposition way beyond the official calculator’s risible “$8 a week”.

Please login to post your comments
150 Responses to
Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
PantsMan 2:26 pm
05 May 12
#1

Yes, I noticed that. When did the ACT Government find out?

Doesn’t matter though. Come July, we’ll all be dancing in the nirvana of our “clean energy future” with all those unemployed Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency looking for “clean energy jobs of the future”.

Is it too late to call this Marxist plot to nationalise industry a bad idea?

mr reason 2:43 pm
05 May 12
#2

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

2604 4:57 pm
05 May 12
#3

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

HenryBG 5:00 pm
05 May 12
#4

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

SnapperJack 5:56 pm
05 May 12
#5

mr reason said :

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

The Qld floods were a one-off. The carbon tax is forever.

PantsMan 6:32 pm
05 May 12
#6

SnapperJack said :

mr reason said :

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

The Qld floods were a one-off. The carbon tax is forever.

And remember, the defacto government (ACT and Cth), The Greens, want the $23 per tonne increased to $120 per tonne.

HenryBG 8:07 pm
05 May 12
#7

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

arescarti42 8:43 pm
05 May 12
#8

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

Right, because that’s been working really well for the world so far…

gooterz 10:38 pm
05 May 12
#9

HenryBG said :

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

100 Tons of CO2 are produced by all humans breathing per second! (makes up about 10% of total human emissions.)

Half a ton a year per person. $11.50 or $60 if the greens get their way.
Can’t wait till they start taxing us when we breath. Perhaps those largest will have to pay extra, or perhaps those sporty types they produce a fair amount of CO2.

pandaman 3:20 am
06 May 12
#10

HenryBG said :

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

Well, It’s an interesting thought as to whether the carbon tax is a marxist device or not. The carbon tax is a socialist attempt at using a distinctly capitalsitic method of market manipulation to achieve a goal, to whit, a significant increase in the uptake of green energy sources. The stated goal of the whole thing being revenue neutral is total bullshit of course, as the bureaucracy of implementation and administration will incur a significant overhead. It’s distinctly socialist in that the government is using this piece of market manipulating legislation as a wealth re-distribution scheme, punishing the upper middle class to deliver large subsidies to the “working classes”. Dude, if only they had the media nouse to capitalise on it properly, it’d be a vote spinner for sure. But, unless the ALP can pull a serious rabbit out of the hat to effectively neutralise the negative PR effects of the Slipper and Thompson scandals along with half a dozen other spotfires, we appear to be doomed to the Honorable Tony Abbott MP, becoming the Right Honorable at some point next year. Fuggit, what a way to become PM, as a borderline intellectual deficient voted in due to even greater idiocy on behalf of the other lot, after they’ve managed to get a seriously interesting and potentially effective piece of legislation through.

So HenryBG, do you have any specific thoughts on the carbon tax, and whether you think it will deliver a good deal for you personally? There’s a lot of confusion about the potential effects of the tax among the community as a whole, and by your tone, you seem to have a very well defined set of views. Care to take the time to expound those views of a Sunday morning?

chewy14 10:56 am
06 May 12
#11

HenryBG said :

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.

2604 11:49 am
06 May 12
#12

HenryBG said :

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

There is nowhere near that level of consensus in relation to renewable energy. People either aren’t sufficiently convinced about the environmental costs of fossil fuel use or find the costs of alternatives too high. The fact that only about 10% of Qantas travellers are prepared to pay to offset the carbon emissions associated with their travel is an example of how few people are concerned enough about environmental issues to reach into their own pockets to address them.

HenryBG said :

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

Industries will continue to “externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities” under a carbon tax, by passing those costs on to consumers. They will also bear significant compliance costs which will also be passed on to consumers. Some of these costs can be minimised (switching to green energy etc) but again those costs will be passed to consumers.

Speaking of “malice”, you might want to turn the megaphone down a notch or two. Refraining from calling people you don’t agree with “stupid” and invoking Tony Abbott at every opportunity would be a good start.

mr reason 11:52 am
06 May 12
#13

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

mr reason 1:08 pm
06 May 12
#14

“100 Tons of CO2 are produced by all humans breathing per second! (makes up about 10% of total human emissions.)

Half a ton a year per person. $11.50 or $60 if the greens get their way.
Can’t wait till they start taxing us when we breath. Perhaps those largest will have to pay extra, or perhaps those sporty types they produce a fair amount of CO2.”

Is this just a classic riot act troll, or are you just so completely misinformed? There would be no point in taxing anyone for breathing. The whole point of the carbon price is to make carbon intensive forms of energy more expensive relative to low carbon sources.

switch 2:27 pm
06 May 12
#15

mr reason said :

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

When will this meme go away? We’re not even in the top ten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

chewy14 2:39 pm
06 May 12
#16

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

PantsMan 3:39 pm
06 May 12
#17

I’m confused.

Doesn’t the Kyoto Protocol expire in about 6 months? Hasn’t Canada withdrawn from it, saying “Kyoto is dead”? Wasn’t Copenhagen a shonks and wonks festival that totally failed, despite over three thousand delegates flying in on CO2-spewing, Gaia-killing, death machines known as “planes”. Hasn’t the US adopted those evil “direct action” tactics to address climate change, but also to enhance its energy security? Is the mooted “price on carbon” being flagged for possible adoption by Chinese municipal governments around $1-2 dollars? Isn’t China planning to reduce its energy use per unit of GDP (which is growing at around 8 per cent per annum), not its actual energy use? And aren’t they doing this by knocking over old, small, inefficient coal-fired power stations and replacing them with bigger more efficient coal-fired power stations burring Australian coal?

Maybe I should ring the people (soon to be employed in the “clean economy of the future” [mega looooolz]) at the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to find out answers to these questions, or will they breach the APS Code of Conduct and refuse to provide me factual information about the policy and programs they are going to nontheless take my money with?

I-filed 4:34 pm
06 May 12
#18

chewy14 said :

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

The carbon tax is not going to make a jot of difference to “climate change” – ever. It’s up there with Earth Hour as a nonsense – only Earth Hour doesn’t do any harm. Not only are we not in the top ten emitters per capita, as a nation of 20 million our overall “emissions” total a minute percentage of those even of Third World polluter China.
ABC interviewed Tim Flannery this morning, and how’s this for an indication of just how shonky the climate change fear-mongers are: Flannery compared Sydneysiders’ fear of sewage pollution along its beaches, and the subsequent building of out-to-sea sewage outlets as a solution, with the carbon tax as a “solution” to climate change. What the? At least he didn’t describe himself as a “climate scientist”, which he did in the last interview I heard.
Re the impending Budget, people will be laughing to themselves: “Hey, i’m pocketing 800 smackeroonis (without even a GFC reason!) from this government and I’ll STILL be voting Julia out at the next election!”

PantsMan 4:41 pm
06 May 12
#19

I-filed said :

chewy14 said :

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

The carbon tax is not going to make a jot of difference to “climate change” – ever. It’s up there with Earth Hour as a nonsense – only Earth Hour doesn’t do any harm. Not only are we not in the top ten emitters per capita, as a nation of 20 million our overall “emissions” total a minute percentage of those even of Third World polluter China.
ABC interviewed Tim Flannery this morning, and how’s this for an indication of just how shonky the climate change fear-mongers are: Flannery compared Sydneysiders’ fear of sewage pollution along its beaches, and the subsequent building of out-to-sea sewage outlets as a solution, with the carbon tax as a “solution” to climate change. What the? At least he didn’t describe himself as a “climate scientist”, which he did in the last interview I heard.
Re the impending Budget, people will be laughing to themselves: “Hey, i’m pocketing 800 smackeroonis (without even a GFC reason!) from this government and I’ll STILL be voting Julia out at the next election!”

Let’s not forget that in first world countries people only have arroudn 2.3 (or some such) children, while in poor countries people have many more than that, leading to population growth and “unsustainable consumption”. Supposed solution: tax people back into povery. Sound’s like surfdom to me. Would Flannery, Combet, Parkinson et al still support a carbon tax if they did not get power over other people from it?

milkman 8:31 pm
06 May 12
#20

We should stop kidding ourselves. Changes to energy generation and consumption that will actually have a meaningful impact will come at great cost, and will significantly reduce the standard of living that we enjoy in this country. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but pretending that we make a few little changes and everything will be fine is naive in the extreme.

Elizabethany 8:39 pm
06 May 12
#21

switch said :

mr reason said :

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

When will this meme go away? We’re not even in the top ten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

From that page… “Countries are ranked by their metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per capita in 2008. The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation.”

and

“The carbon dioxide emissions of a country are only an indicator of one greenhouse gas. For a more complete idea of how a country influences climate change, gases such as methane and nitrous oxide should be taken into account. This is particularly so in agricultural economies.”

We mine, farm and log, none of which are included in that list. Our cows fart (methane), and plowing releases nitrous oxide from our soils. We cut down our forests and build pulp mills. Our resources are used around the world to release even more CO2 equivalent gases. And the main problem with the carbon tax is that it dosn’t include these sources eirther (can’t hurt the farmers!)

Personally, I think the human race has left its environmentalism run a bit late, and with the growth of politics of divisiveness (on both sides in ALL major demorcarcies), and it is too late. We will hit warming with seriously unpleasant effects. It is time to work on dealing with what is to come, rather trying to prevent it.

I-filed 9:54 pm
06 May 12
#22

Elizabethany said :

Our cows fart (methane)

Speaking of cows – it’s a little-known fact that the breathtakingly opportunistic Tim Flannery was until recently in the (considerable) pay of Meat & Livestock Australia as a consultant on “sustainable cattle farming”! Presumably in a PR spin capacity. Flanner described himself only this morning on radio as a mere biologist whose career was “discovering new species in PNG and environs”, and speculating on Indigenous prehistory, until he jumped on the climate change gravy train. If one didn’t know his modus operandi, one might have wondered on what Tim Flannery’s new-found expertise on cattle husbandry could possibly be based.

Why are our tax dollars paying this show pony $180,000 p.a. part-time, three days a week? What is he delivering?

gazket 11:13 pm
06 May 12
#23

Labour = incompetent fools.

The only reason they want a carbon tax is to cover thier arses from the mismanagement of the tax payers /our money.

HenryBG 11:37 pm
06 May 12
#24

I-filed said :

Speaking of cows – it’s a little-known fact that the breathtakingly opportunistic Tim Flannery was until recently in the (considerable) pay of Meat & Livestock Australia as a consultant on “sustainable cattle farming”!

Ye Gods! Somebody got a job as a consultant? I don’t believe you!

I-filed said :

Presumably in a PR spin capacity.

Sure. Or – just maybe – Dr Flannery has some expertise which people are willing to pay for.
Seems like others in the business agree with him -
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/flannery-backs-farm-animals-in-fight-against-carbon/1681075.aspx

I-filed said :

Flanner described himself only this morning on radio as a mere biologist whose career was “discovering new species in PNG and environs”, and speculating on Indigenous prehistory, until he jumped on the climate change gravy train.

How very unselfish of him – he could have jumped on the Gina Rhinehardt/Rupert Murdoch/Heartland gravy Train like Bob Carter did and got paid for spinning up bullshit designed to “undermine the teaching of science” (direct quote from their strategy documents) instead.

I-filed said :

If one didn’t know his modus operandi, one might have wondered on what Tim Flannery’s new-found expertise on cattle husbandry could possibly be based.

Oh, I don’t know, how does his extensive post-graduate research and publications in the field of zoology including the descriptions for 29 new species of Kangaroo compare with *your* expertise in the field?

I-filed said :

Why are our tax dollars paying this show pony $180,000 p.a. part-time, three days a week? What is he delivering?

It’s well under what *I* get paid – and most of my peers, and I have never written anything even remotely as good as Dr Flannery’s extensive publications (“Throwim Way Leg” being my personal favorite).

I assume you crank halfwits are just jealous of others who have an intellect and an education that others are willing to pay for. I accidentally caught a minute or two of Andrew Bolt’s woeful TV show again today – clearly nobody would pay *him* $180,000 pro-rata for his “expertise”, which he gained from dropping out of uni and then…writing bollocks for the next 30 years.

Additionally, you might want to back off from the retarded reactionary crankism for a minute and figure out what “pro-rata” means – you can then explain it to Sen. MacFarlane (who proved unable to grasp it in Senate estimates shortly after Dr Flannery was employed) as well as Joanne Codling from whom you clearly get your insane gibberish.

HenryBG 11:42 pm
06 May 12
#25

PantsMan said :

Supposed solution: tax people back into povery. Sound’s like surfdom to me. Would Flannery, Combet, Parkinson et al still support a carbon tax if they did not get power over other people from it?

Are you referring to the “UN Plan 21″, which aims to gain total control over all world governments and then kill everybody?

The problem with Surfdom is it only works down the coast, so the UN can’t touch us here in Canberra, especially if we put our hands over our eyes and shout very loudly, “I can’t see it, therefore it’s not happening!

Thanks for the excellent demonstration of the kind of intellect that is attracted to climate denialism.

HenryBG 12:02 am
07 May 12
#26

pandaman said :

So HenryBG, do you have any specific thoughts on the carbon tax, and whether you think it will deliver a good deal for you personally? There’s a lot of confusion about the potential effects of the tax among the community as a whole, and by your tone, you seem to have a very well defined set of views. Care to take the time to expound those views of a Sunday morning?

As pointed out above, the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effects of the already-introduced GST. SO I’m not particularly concerned about it being a “good deal” for me, or not, when it should be obvious to Blind Freddy that ending CO2-emitting industries’ ability to externalise the cost of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is a sensible thing to do.

More interestingly, though, with a long string of wars having been fought over access to fossil fuels since 1914; with one proper big oil crisis under our belts; with the last decade-and-a-half of rampant price increases and price volatility in the energy sector; and with the concentration of ownership of energy producers and distribution, I think it is decidedly in our interest as a community to invest in and promote alternative means of producing energy.

The chief reason there is such a massive PR-effort aimed at disseminating lies about the science, lies about renewable technologies, personal vilification of the scientists (witness the numbnut nonsense about Flannery above), and destabilising governments who fail to toe the Murdoch line is because by definition, an energy-producing industry that doesn’t rely on a tightly-controlled supply-chain of fuel, is an industry that is democratised: all you have to do as an individual, a community, or a local government is buy the infrastructure and install it, and the corporations that make so much money supplying the fuel are entirely cut out of the loop. They are petrified at the idea of their impending obsolescence and their future inability to manipulate governments to start profit-generating wars over fossil fuel deposits.

I think it’s interesting that the world’s biggest defender of the “climate change is crap” lie is Rupert Murdoch: officially now a person who is, “not a fit person” to be running a public company.
That description can be extended to anybody associated with Heartland: they are not fit persons to have their opinions taken into account in the public policy debate over the future of energy generation and how we will address the effects of climate change.
That description should also be extended to Tony Abbot, Nick Minchin, and any of the rest of them who have let politics get in the way of commonsense on this issue: they are not fit people to be representing Australians in either of our houses of parliament.

PantsMan 12:40 am
07 May 12
#27

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

JC 7:08 am
07 May 12
#28

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

S
But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

Bulldust. People put their rubbish in the bin because garbage collection is a non optional ‘tax’. Sure as shit if you gave people the option of opting out of garbage collection there would be a lot of people who would happily forgo the cost of the collection and dumo where ever they like. Just take a look at all the people who dump items at charity bins or in the parks or bush that they would otherwise have to pay for. In fact rubbish collection is a good example of where for the most part a compulsory tax works, so too with the carbon tax.

krash 7:33 am
07 May 12
#29

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

HenryBG 8:16 am
07 May 12
#30

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Of all the garbage in Australia, Canberra produces 1%.

Of that, *your* street produces 0.1%.

So why do we bother collecting garbage from *your* street?

/scratch head?

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.