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
pajs 9:28 am
08 May 12
#61

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

chewy14 9:42 am
08 May 12
#62

HenryBG,
so the benefits of the Carbon tax bribes don’t actually apply to you even though you said they did?

chewy14 9:51 am
08 May 12
#63

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

You seem to be conflating the Carbon Tax with Climate Change.

The carbon tax will not make one lick of difference to the rate of climate change without getting the world’s major emitters (by size) to take action also.

Without a global agreement, our actions are mere symbolism.

pajs 10:26 am
08 May 12
#64

chewy14 said :

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

You seem to be conflating the Carbon Tax with Climate Change.

The carbon tax will not make one lick of difference to the rate of climate change without getting the world’s major emitters (by size) to take action also.

Without a global agreement, our actions are mere symbolism.

Chewy, there is a link between what we do and what other major emitters do. We have already seen the Chinese use the Australian approach when planning their regional-scale trials of different ways to price carbon.

The more countries with carbon prices and compatible approaches to trading, the better chance of finding lower-cost (and not dodgy) abatement. Yes, a big, global agreement would be great, but the risk of waiting to act until that happens looks pretty unattractive to me.

The South Korean parliament has just passed (in a bi-partisan vote) legislation for their emissions trading scheme. Things are rolling along on this with our trading partners and we need to be on board.

dungfungus 11:07 am
08 May 12
#65

Thumper said :

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types

their fear of science

Is it malice or just stupidity?

he could have jumped on the Gina Rhinehardt/Rupert Murdoch/Heartland gravy Train

got paid for spinning up bullshit designed to “undermine the teaching of science”

you crank halfwits

just jealous of others who have an intellect and an education

your insane gibberish

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

witness the numbnut nonsense about Flannery above

they are not fit people to be representing Australians

Kooks

Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch

dishonest media organization

Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective

Did Andrew Bolt tell you to think this?

it’s reassuring to see that you have faith in 20-year-old science and 20-year-old scientific modelling

you should probably leave its interpretation to those of us who are literate, numerate, and capable of logic and reason

the usual cranks and whingers

Still feel the need to panic?

Chicken Little?

utter buffoons

Ah tolerance, something that seems somewhat lost in some cases.

I’ll leave it there and await my flaming.

And of course, this comes from a person who believes, due to some sort standing or entitlement, that he should be exempt from jury duty.

But hey, I may be wrong, Henry could be a nice, tolerant, calm and rational person, willing to discuss issues.

Henry’s only fault is that he persists in breathing.

welkin31 11:31 am
08 May 12
#66

First – top marks to #60 Thumper
I am reminded of the old expression “A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down”
On to emissions facts.
#64 pajs has mentioned South Korea – “…has just passed (in a bi-partisan vote) legislation for their emissions trading scheme. Things are rolling along on this with our trading partners and we need to be on board.”
Rather than speculate about what South Korea will ever do about an ETS – I am more impressed with their actual carbon dioxide emissions compared to Australia.
Here are numbers for 2008-2009-2010 (from the CDIAC spreadsheet linked below)
in million metric tonnes carbon dioxide. They tally numbers from coal, oil, gas, cement and gas flaring – do not include figures re landuse changes.
Note that just the South Korean increase 2008-2010 is way larger than our decrease.
Australia, 2008 – 399, 2009 – 401, 2010 – 365
South Korea , 2008 – 509, 2009 – 515, 2010 – 563
China, 2008 – 7029, 2009 – 7461, 2010 – 8239
A Graphic of China emissions in million metric tonnes carbon dioxide to 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_emissions_due_to_consumption_in_China.png
Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.
Sources
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
Excel spreadsheet for download – compare for yourself the scale of Chinese emissions.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prelim_2009_2010_estimates.html

grump 11:59 am
08 May 12
#67

as Welkin says “Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.”

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

pajs 12:22 pm
08 May 12
#68

grump said :

as Welkin says “Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.”

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

Our standard of living (not to mention quality of life) won’t go backward because of a price on carbon. What will happen is a slightly lower rate of increase in GDP than would otherwise be the case if we persisted in dumping emissions into the atmosphere with no attempt to price that externality. Nothing to get too hung up on. We’ll still be a rich country, living it easy.

And with a price in place, Australia is in a better situation to lobby and advocate for responsible action with and by large emitters. I’d much rather start now, slowly and smoothly, with carbon pricing in Australia than get to a crunch point in ten or twenty years time and have to start major change.

grump 12:33 pm
08 May 12
#69

pajs – if that is the case – don’t link the tax to a being a global white knight in the fight against high carbon levels – that’s a blatant misrepresentation in my view, and many others I suspect – just call it an environmental tax and direct it to appropriate areas or none at all – selling it as a global panacea to climate change, when as most would agree I suspect, our efforts will achieve a big fat global zero, is total rot!

Jim Jones 12:47 pm
08 May 12
#70

grump said :

pajs – if that is the case – don’t link the tax to a being a global white knight in the fight against high carbon levels – that’s a blatant misrepresentation in my view, and many others I suspect – just call it an environmental tax and direct it to appropriate areas or none at all – selling it as a global panacea to climate change, when as most would agree I suspect, our efforts will achieve a big fat global zero, is total rot!

Who has sold the climate change as being a global panacea to climate change?

I don’t remember anybody ever doing that, ever.

HenryBG 2:27 pm
08 May 12
#71

chewy14 said :

HenryBG,
so the benefits of the Carbon tax bribes don’t actually apply to you even though you said they did?

Of course they apply to me. I am affected by the economy, and a well-designed system will have positive effects on me. If all the poor people have an extra $10/week, then the carbon tax will boost the economy, as it did when they introduced one in British Columbia.

HenryBG 2:31 pm
08 May 12
#72

grump said :

….while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age ….

So a 0.7% increase to CPI is going to make us “descend in to thew next stone age”?

Thumper and Dungfungus and Welkin: your criticisms would flirt with credibility if you weren’t such blatant hypocrites as to ignore this breathless nonsense being emitted by the tinfoil-hatted global-warming denier brigade.

“Back to the stoneage”????

That is batshit-crazy insane, and if you three can’t see it, it’s because you’re in the same club as the other loon.

rhino 2:53 pm
08 May 12
#73

HenryBG said :

grump said :

….while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age ….

So a 0.7% increase to CPI is going to make us “descend in to thew next stone age”?

Thumper and Dungfungus and Welkin: your criticisms would flirt with credibility if you weren’t such blatant hypocrites as to ignore this breathless nonsense being emitted by the tinfoil-hatted global-warming denier brigade.

“Back to the stoneage”????

That is batshit-crazy insane, and if you three can’t see it, it’s because you’re in the same club as the other loon.

I believe when they mentioned the stone age, they were referring to the fact that if we literally went back to the stone age hypothetically and renounced all fuels and manufacturing etc completely, it would still make no difference in the scheme of things in terms of carbon emissions.

I think you interpretted it to mean that the carbon tax would put us back into the stone age literally.

dtc 2:59 pm
08 May 12
#74

grump said :

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

So, Australia should not do anything at all about anything unless it has a significant effect on the whole world?

Thumper 3:00 pm
08 May 12
#75

Thumper and Dungfungus and Welkin: your criticisms would flirt with credibility if you weren’t such blatant hypocrites as to ignore this breathless nonsense being emitted by the tinfoil-hatted global-warming denier brigade

My point stands.

Thumper 3:04 pm
08 May 12
#76

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

pepmeup 3:07 pm
08 May 12
#77

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

The problem is that naturally the earth takes in and puts out carbon, breths in and out, if the earth naturally breaths in and out the same amount. then the 97% in irrelivent.

But if it doesn’t then your sum is even more scary.

humans make 3%
Aussies make 1.4% or 3%
=
0.042%
we will cut our emission by 5%
total cut to global emissions by Australia’s carbon Tax
=0.0021%

not much really given China and India are increaseing by more than Australia’s total each year

HenryBG 3:22 pm
08 May 12
#78

Thumper said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

Thumper 3:32 pm
08 May 12
#79

HenryBG said :

Thumper said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

And I’ll ask again, exactly where in this thread did I mention anything about carbon taxes or climate change?

And of course, once again, you amply demonstrate my point.

Roundhead89 3:48 pm
08 May 12
#80

HenryBG said :

Thumper said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

Ah yes, the usual MO of climate change believers. Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch. Please, this sort of thing lost its impact long ago and you – and the last remaining remnants of the climate change brigade – are now just p*ssing in the wind.

pajs 4:13 pm
08 May 12
#81

Roundhead89 said :

HenryBG said :

Thumper said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

Ah yes, the usual MO of climate change believers. Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch. Please, this sort of thing lost its impact long ago and you – and the last remaining remnants of the climate change brigade – are now just p*ssing in the wind.

It’s not a matter of climate change ‘belief’. It’s science. Keep the ‘belief’ language for threads about religion.

As for your claim that it has been proven that sea levels aren’t rising, I wonder where you get this idea from? If you can find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows the trend data on sea level isn’t showing a rise, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Or maybe just have a look at the 20 year trend in the sea level data here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Jim Jones 4:39 pm
08 May 12
#82

pajs said :

+ however many scientists there are in the world.

nobody 6:09 pm
08 May 12
#83

A few here have commented international co-operation to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions has failed, a few have commented Australia’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions are pointless, and a few have commented larger countries are doing little to reduce their GHG emissions.

The meeting in Copenhagen in 2009 was partially successful and international co-operation is continuing post Kyoto, Australia’s reductions will make a difference, and many large countries are also aiming to reduce their GHG emissions (China, USA, most of Europe, Japan, Russia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_accord

More needs to be done to reduce GHG emissions, by Australia and other countries, and Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme may not be perfect, but finally we are starting to take action.

HenryBG 7:40 pm
08 May 12
#84

Roundhead89 said :

Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch.

And there you have it: “Sea levels are not rising”.

I told you these sorts of discussions are always derailed by nutters who can’t even accept the most basic facts in our current reality.

The more subtle of them leave the anti-facts at home and try other arguments, like, “BIG BAD TAX”, “Back to the stoneage!!” but underneath they’re all on the same anti-science crusade as the numpty I’ve quoted.

Of course if Thumper wishes to not grapple with the issue of anti-science lunatics telling lies, he can continue with his tone-trolling. It’s an admission of sorts.

I-filed 8:09 pm
08 May 12
#85

HenryBG said :

I-filed said :

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay -….

I’m sorry for lobbing that one over your head, let me be more explicit for you: I wasn’t “boasting” about anything, I was drawing attention to the fact that Dr Flannery is not being paid much all.

$180,000pa is $86.50/hour.

Find me just *one* other consultant in Canberra who works for that little.

Allow me to correct you. Flannery is paid $180,000 for three days a week, 40 weeks a year. More like $200 an hour, actually.

gazket 8:25 pm
08 May 12
#86

carbon tax . The only sure thing it will do is see Australians loose jobs, put Labour on the endangered list and The watermelon greens die a miserable death.

chewy14 8:35 pm
08 May 12
#87

HenryBG said :

Roundhead89 said :

Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch.

And there you have it: “Sea levels are not rising”.

I told you these sorts of discussions are always derailed by nutters who can’t even accept the most basic facts in our current reality.

The more subtle of them leave the anti-facts at home and try other arguments, like, “BIG BAD TAX”, “Back to the stoneage!!” but underneath they’re all on the same anti-science crusade as the numpty I’ve quoted.

Of course if Thumper wishes to not grapple with the issue of anti-science lunatics telling lies, he can continue with his tone-trolling. It’s an admission of sorts.

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax. Just because some people who also disagree with the carbon tax post crazy ideas, doesn’t mean that all people against the carbon tax believe those things.
Someone so fond of science and evidence shouldn’t make that mistake. It’s as bad as people claiming that all those who support the carbon tax are tree hugging hippies who worship mother Gaia.

2604 9:39 pm
08 May 12
#88

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

I am not sure how realistic the six degree figure is given that the total (not annual) increase between 1906-2005 was only 0.74 degrees Celsius. It beggars belief that the global temperature will increase by almost 8 times this amount in only 23 years.

HenryBG 10:26 pm
08 May 12
#89

2604 said :

I am not sure how realistic the six degree figure is given that the total (not annual) increase between 1906-2005 was only 0.74 degrees Celsius. It beggars belief that the global temperature will increase by almost 8 times this amount in only 23 years.

It would be pretty pathetic if the chief economist of the International Energy Agency were making statements based on nothing more than reading a single line in the introduction to an IPCC report.

Or do you think that whatever expert professional advice the IEA has taken can be disbelieved by simply reading a single line in the introduction to an IPCC report?

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

What does that say to you? Yes? “The trend is accelerating”, maybe? Well done!

I have no idea whether 6 degrees in the mentioned period is realistic, and it would be a complete fool who would decide to arrive at a conclusion based on such a very thin selection of data but as I am not an expert professional working in this area, it stands to reason that the expert professionals working in this area are *vastly* more likely to be correct than any belief you or I may have about it.

And I would trust the Chief Economist of the IEA is being professional about this.

If there is *any* risk of 6-degree warming, then this would be a global emergency. But the denial machine creaks on……

HenryBG 12:01 am
09 May 12
#90

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

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.