Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By I-filed - 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”.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
150 Responses to
Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
61
pajs 9:28 am
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

62
chewy14 9:42 am
08 May 12
#

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

Report this comment

63
chewy14 9:51 am
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

64
pajs 10:26 am
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

65
dungfungus 11:07 am
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

66
welkin31 11:31 am
08 May 12
#

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

Report this comment

67
grump 11:59 am
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

68
pajs 12:22 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

69
grump 12:33 pm
08 May 12
#

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!

Report this comment

70
Jim Jones 12:47 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

71
HenryBG 2:27 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

72
HenryBG 2:31 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

73
rhino 2:53 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

74
dtc 2:59 pm
08 May 12
#

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?

Report this comment

75
Thumper 3:00 pm
08 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

1 3 4 5 6 7 10

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site