Leccy prices up 17.74%. Blame Julia

Mysteryman said :

Do you know what the SNA is? Perhaps you should look it up, moron. While the carbon price is fixed, it is a tax. It’s as simple as that.

They want to treat it as a tax for their accounting purposes.

The police do the same thing: fake firearms are treated as “firearms” for the purpose of which legsilatioln people are charged under.

Doesn’t change the fact that a fake firearm isn’t a firearm anymore than a price on carbon emissions is a tax.

Jim Jones said :

Lol. Had to stretch to get that one, didn’t you? “Under the ‘SNA’ – great work.

Funny that even the newscorp journos admit that it isn’t a tax: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/this-is-not-a-bloody-carbon-tax/

And just because you’re extra thick – if you bothered to actually research, you’d see that the ABS BFS includes carbon pricing under “indirect taxation”, along with excise duty, GST & customs duty. Because it’s meets the criteria of a TAX.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/download/bp1_bst9.pdf

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

It is most definitely a tax according to every economic definition of the word. No two ways about it.

Lol. It’s a ‘tax’ in the same way that a speeding fine is a ‘tax’.

http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/oct_2011_ap_5.2_staff_paper_possible_financial_reporting_implications_carbon_tax.pdf

From the Australian Accounting Standards Board. Read paragraph 52. It summarises with “Based on the above, the carbon tax is a tax under the SNA”.

You should have put your “lol” after your ignorant statement. At least then you could have claimed retrospectively that you were being sarcastic.

Lol. Had to stretch to get that one, didn’t you? “Under the ‘SNA’ – great work.

Funny that even the newscorp journos admit that it isn’t a tax: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/this-is-not-a-bloody-carbon-tax/

I’ll take the word of the Australian Accounting Standards Board over “the newscorp journos” when it comes to matters of TAXATION.

Do you know what the SNA is? Perhaps you should look it up, moron. While the carbon price is fixed, it is a tax. It’s as simple as that.

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

It is most definitely a tax according to every economic definition of the word. No two ways about it.

Lol. It’s a ‘tax’ in the same way that a speeding fine is a ‘tax’.

http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/oct_2011_ap_5.2_staff_paper_possible_financial_reporting_implications_carbon_tax.pdf

From the Australian Accounting Standards Board. Read paragraph 52. It summarises with “Based on the above, the carbon tax is a tax under the SNA”.

You should have put your “lol” after your ignorant statement. At least then you could have claimed retrospectively that you were being sarcastic.

Lol. Had to stretch to get that one, didn’t you? “Under the ‘SNA’ – great work.

Funny that even the newscorp journos admit that it isn’t a tax: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/this-is-not-a-bloody-carbon-tax/

While the News Limited zombies keep parroting their Master’s Voice, alternative sources of news are actually reporting on the great rip-off we’ve been suffering:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rampaging-price-rises-to-stop-says-energy-boss-20120712-21yz1.html

THE new head of the state’s highly profitable power distributors, Vince Graham, has told staff that prices must be held to rises in the overall inflation rate – or less.

The Herald reported yesterday that the three government-owned power distributors – Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy – were raking in record profits, with the largest of the three, Ausgrid, telling the state government it expected to earn $1.1 billion for the year to June 30.

The revelations that power companies are earning a return on equity of up to 21.1 per cent, well in excess of most firms, prompted outrage from welfare and consumer groups, especially given years of double-digit rises in power bills.

In recent staff briefings, Mr Graham said the level of price rises of the past few years were unsustainable, according to staff at the meetings. Staff have also been told future price rises must be kept as close as possible to the general inflation rate, which was 1.6 per cent in the year up to March.

Late last year, when he was running Endeavour Energy, Mr Graham informed the industry regulator, the Australian Energy Market Commission, customers could expect price rises ”well below those of recent years and closer to the rate of inflation for the next seven years”.

”The businesses have already been asked to review their operating and capital budgets for the next two years to reduce their costs so that future prices are kept as low as possible,” he said yesterday.

Mr Graham was recently made acting head of the government’s three network businesses. Households are facing additional price rises of as much as 21 per cent with effect from July 1. In some areas, prices have risen by more than 60 per cent over the past three years.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

It is most definitely a tax according to every economic definition of the word. No two ways about it.

Lol. It’s a ‘tax’ in the same way that a speeding fine is a ‘tax’.

http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/oct_2011_ap_5.2_staff_paper_possible_financial_reporting_implications_carbon_tax.pdf

From the Australian Accounting Standards Board. Read paragraph 52. It summarises with “Based on the above, the carbon tax is a tax under the SNA”.

You should have put your “lol” after your ignorant statement. At least then you could have claimed retrospectively that you were being sarcastic.

dungfungus said :

RE: comment #199.
Baggy, please confirm (for HenryBG’s benefit) that your increased electricity charges included GST and there was no notation regarding the carbon price component.

Given that it’s only the 16th July I think you’ll find almost all of the increase is not due to the carbon tax/levy/fee/charge/toll/price….

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

It is most definitely a tax according to every economic definition of the word. No two ways about it.

Lol. It’s a ‘tax’ in the same way that a speeding fine is a ‘tax’.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

So, if we follow your spin Henry, we will have a Goods and Services “Price” as well as the existing Goods and Services Tax on everything from now on?

And the cost wasn’t “externalised” 100%; it was only 7% according to Combet.

Actually it would be great if we could have GSP and GST together on our receipts from now on. This would take the guesswork out of exactly how much the carbon tax (whoops! PRICE) is costing us.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this – maybe The Australian should get an actual economist to write about it instead of telling you to think something that is wrong.

If I run a restaurant, I have to pay $100 every week to have my skip out the back emptied. It’s not a tax. That $100/week is a cost which I have to factor into the prices I charge. I have to pay GST on what I charge. That’s a tax.

Once again, we see The Australian fulfilling its newfound mission, not as a media organisation aiming to inform its readers, but as a political lobbying organisation aiming to misinform the dwindling flock of sheep who choose to swallow its nonsense.

Headline in Daily Telegraph today inform us readers of more propaganda:
“In one of the biggest increases since July 1, the cost of hiring mini skip bins has risen by at least $100, or 25 per cent, due to the green levy and a new state government waste charge”
You picked a good example for you restaurant argument, Henry.

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

It is most definitely a tax according to every economic definition of the word. No two ways about it.

I-filed said :

snoopydoc said :

Wow… maybe people might actually have to consider… using less electricity… ??!!!

What a novel concept.

Stop your whinging, be more efficient / intelligent with your energy usage, and find something legitimate to complain about. 🙂

Oh shut the f up. Canberra is hot/cold, and the only way to save energy, unless you are building a brand-new house, is expensive retrofitting. That is if the Canberra house is retrofit-friendly – there are many, many zero-rated houses in Canberra. Energy efficiency generally requires the investment of money – remember, the educated, prewarned, insiders class got in on the energy freebies early – and the Labor government cut them all just as word began to get out to the hoi polloi.

I am really pissed-off as I recently bought on-line a solar powered electric blanket and it refuses to boot-up at night.
Must be the northern hemisphere model.

snoopydoc said :

Wow… maybe people might actually have to consider… using less electricity… ??!!!

What a novel concept.

Stop your whinging, be more efficient / intelligent with your energy usage, and find something legitimate to complain about. 🙂

Only a fool would use more electricity than was required. Most of us have already reduced consumption to a minimum so there is now nowhere to turn.
My “legitimate” complaint is that lately, the things we own are losing value and the things we need are increasing in price.
What is your advice, sage?

RE: comment #199.
Baggy, please confirm (for HenryBG’s benefit) that your increased electricity charges included GST and there was no notation regarding the carbon price component.

snoopydoc said :

Wow… maybe people might actually have to consider… using less electricity… ??!!!

What a novel concept.

Stop your whinging, be more efficient / intelligent with your energy usage, and find something legitimate to complain about. 🙂

Just copped my bill.

Usage is down nearly 20% on the same quarter last year, an impressive effort considering we’ve an extra mouth this year and so there are 2 people at home 24/7 rather than none during the working week.

Alas, we’re still paying a notable sum more than the same quarter.

is that not something legitimate to complain about?

snoopydoc said :

Wow… maybe people might actually have to consider… using less electricity… ??!!!

What a novel concept.

Stop your whinging, be more efficient / intelligent with your energy usage, and find something legitimate to complain about. 🙂

Oh shut the f up. Canberra is hot/cold, and the only way to save energy, unless you are building a brand-new house, is expensive retrofitting. That is if the Canberra house is retrofit-friendly – there are many, many zero-rated houses in Canberra. Energy efficiency generally requires the investment of money – remember, the educated, prewarned, insiders class got in on the energy freebies early – and the Labor government cut them all just as word began to get out to the hoi polloi.

Wow… maybe people might actually have to consider… using less electricity… ??!!!

What a novel concept.

Stop your whinging, be more efficient / intelligent with your energy usage, and find something legitimate to complain about. 🙂

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

So, if we follow your spin Henry, we will have a Goods and Services “Price” as well as the existing Goods and Services Tax on everything from now on?

And the cost wasn’t “externalised” 100%; it was only 7% according to Combet.

Actually it would be great if we could have GSP and GST together on our receipts from now on. This would take the guesswork out of exactly how much the carbon tax (whoops! PRICE) is costing us.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this – maybe The Australian should get an actual economist to write about it instead of telling you to think something that is wrong.

If I run a restaurant, I have to pay $100 every week to have my skip out the back emptied. It’s not a tax. That $100/week is a cost which I have to factor into the prices I charge. I have to pay GST on what I charge. That’s a tax.

Once again, we see The Australian fulfilling its newfound mission, not as a media organisation aiming to inform its readers, but as a political lobbying organisation aiming to misinform the dwindling flock of sheep who choose to swallow its nonsense.

You are the only one who is finding it hard to understand Henry as you, like some in the government, are in denial that the carbon price is only GST exempt when paid by the 300 plus or minus big polluters. From there on it is translated to price increases so the big polluters can recoup their carbon price cost increases. You don’t need an economist to explain that.
What do you think the “carbon price compensation” paid to the battlers is for?
GST is added to taxable supply/services and before the carbon price you would have been paying $9.09 GST every time your $100 skip was taken away.
When the price of the skip service increases because of the carbon price being applied to waste disposal you will have to pass on the cost to your customers (if you want to stay in business)
If the skip service increases in price to $120 then another $1.82 GST will be collected from you.
What you tell your customers is up to you but you cannot escape the fact that GST is being charged on any taxable supply/services price increases caused by the carbon price (or anything else for that matter)

So you object to the GST then?

Take it up with John “never ever” Howard.

You seem to have failed basic comprehension: dealing with waste is a cost.
It can be kitchen waste or it can be CO2, it’s all waste, and there is a price for any business that generates waste. That price can be in the form of s skip service, or it can be in the form of a price the government imposes on the generation of the waste. This is not taxation.

The price of generating waste becomes an overhead the business needs to cover in its pricing structure, as well as an incentive to generate less waste.

You should stop believing the propaganda from The Australian and try commonsense instead.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

So, if we follow your spin Henry, we will have a Goods and Services “Price” as well as the existing Goods and Services Tax on everything from now on?

And the cost wasn’t “externalised” 100%; it was only 7% according to Combet.

Actually it would be great if we could have GSP and GST together on our receipts from now on. This would take the guesswork out of exactly how much the carbon tax (whoops! PRICE) is costing us.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this – maybe The Australian should get an actual economist to write about it instead of telling you to think something that is wrong.

If I run a restaurant, I have to pay $100 every week to have my skip out the back emptied. It’s not a tax. That $100/week is a cost which I have to factor into the prices I charge. I have to pay GST on what I charge. That’s a tax.

Once again, we see The Australian fulfilling its newfound mission, not as a media organisation aiming to inform its readers, but as a political lobbying organisation aiming to misinform the dwindling flock of sheep who choose to swallow its nonsense.

You are the only one who is finding it hard to understand Henry as you, like some in the government, are in denial that the carbon price is only GST exempt when paid by the 300 plus or minus big polluters. From there on it is translated to price increases so the big polluters can recoup their carbon price cost increases. You don’t need an economist to explain that.
What do you think the “carbon price compensation” paid to the battlers is for?
GST is added to taxable supply/services and before the carbon price you would have been paying $9.09 GST every time your $100 skip was taken away.
When the price of the skip service increases because of the carbon price being applied to waste disposal you will have to pass on the cost to your customers (if you want to stay in business)
If the skip service increases in price to $120 then another $1.82 GST will be collected from you.
What you tell your customers is up to you but you cannot escape the fact that GST is being charged on any taxable supply/services price increases caused by the carbon price (or anything else for that matter)

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

So, if we follow your spin Henry, we will have a Goods and Services “Price” as well as the existing Goods and Services Tax on everything from now on?

And the cost wasn’t “externalised” 100%; it was only 7% according to Combet.

Actually it would be great if we could have GSP and GST together on our receipts from now on. This would take the guesswork out of exactly how much the carbon tax (whoops! PRICE) is costing us.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this – maybe The Australian should get an actual economist to write about it instead of telling you to think something that is wrong.

If I run a restaurant, I have to pay $100 every week to have my skip out the back emptied. It’s not a tax. That $100/week is a cost which I have to factor into the prices I charge. I have to pay GST on what I charge. That’s a tax.

Once again, we see The Australian fulfilling its newfound mission, not as a media organisation aiming to inform its readers, but as a political lobbying organisation aiming to misinform the dwindling flock of sheep who choose to swallow its nonsense.

I-filed said :

Well, since last Sunday my supermarket bill seems to have jumped by about 5 per cent. Thanks Julia.

Mine too. It all must be due to the carbon tax (or carbon price as HenryBG calls it) as inflation is falling according to our world’s greatest Treasurer.
We just have to cop it sweet.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that all price rises attributable to the carbon tax will have GST added on. What a delicious irony.

The headlines in several national newspapers today:

AUSTRALIANS are facing a surprise “tax on a tax”, as the GST is applied on top of the carbon tax to power bills, appliance repairs and other everyday costs.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/bills-skyrocket-with-gst-on-top-of-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226424870255#ixzz20YsTWWH9

Well, I did warn you all.

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

So, if we follow your spin Henry, we will have a Goods and Services “Price” as well as the existing Goods and Services Tax on everything from now on?

And the cost wasn’t “externalised” 100%; it was only 7% according to Combet.

Actually it would be great if we could have GSP and GST together on our receipts from now on. This would take the guesswork out of exactly how much the carbon tax (whoops! PRICE) is costing us.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that all price rises attributable to the carbon tax will have GST added on. What a delicious irony.

The headlines in several national newspapers today:

AUSTRALIANS are facing a surprise “tax on a tax”, as the GST is applied on top of the carbon tax to power bills, appliance repairs and other everyday costs.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/bills-skyrocket-with-gst-on-top-of-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226424870255#ixzz20YsTWWH9

Well, I did warn you all.

Now you see the confusion the results from you (and others) mistakenly calling a carbon price, a “tax”.

It isn’t a tax so stop calling it that.

It is quite simply a cost which until recently was 100% externalised.

Well, since last Sunday my supermarket bill seems to have jumped by about 5 per cent. Thanks Julia.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that all price rises attributable to the carbon tax will have GST added on. What a delicious irony.

The headlines in several national newspapers today:

AUSTRALIANS are facing a surprise “tax on a tax”, as the GST is applied on top of the carbon tax to power bills, appliance repairs and other everyday costs.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/bills-skyrocket-with-gst-on-top-of-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226424870255#ixzz20YsTWWH9

Well, I did warn you all.

dungfungus said :

The GST didn’t “push up prices three times more either” – the CPI (different than the cost of living) did rise 2.5% over the 3 years following introduction of the GST and the popular conclusion was that the rise was attributed to the GST.

In the September quarter of 2001 the CPI went up 3.7%, if we take the year before and after as a reference this is 3 percentage points higher than the prevailing rate. Treasury forecasts the effect of the carbon price will be 0.7% which is actually less than a quarter of the GST effect.

Anyway we will not know until a couple of years down the track what the effect was and it’s going to be very difficult to tease out the carbon price of the other things that will be in play over the same period:

Exchange rates
Interest rates
What happens to Europe
Oil prices
Etc
Etc

I’m predicting too small to detect.

Surely Julia Gillard will be cynically harnessing bracket creep in some form here. I’m no numbers person, but it occurs to me that plans to push the carbon price to thirty-something dollars in a few years, without committing to index the point at which compensation cuts out, means that those of you who are in the $70,000 bracket now will get (or hopefully “would have gotten” with Abbott in) absolutely NO help from the government, or the help you get now will be (“would have been”) hopelessly devalued, once the real carbon tax impacts are happening. In fact, there’s been absolutely no rationale cited behind the decision to cut out assistance at $80,000. I suspect that was carefully chosen as a likely statistical bulge to happen in a few years. So, be sure to vote Julia Gillard out, you who are currently classed as “middle” income earners!

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that all price rises attributable to the carbon tax will have GST added on. What a delicious irony.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

Due to the complexities of the GST which introduced a new tax on services and re-aligned existing state taxes on goods, it is impossible to compare the GST to the carbon tax so I am not going to get into a protracted debate with you. I will however say that the GST ignited a consumer spending spree especially with motor cars as the sales tax of 25% on them was replaced with a 10% GST. The GST didn’t “push up prices three times more either” – the CPI (different than the cost of living) did rise 2.5% over the 3 years following introduction of the GST and the popular conclusion was that the rise was attributed to the GST. I did not oppose introduction of the GST as it was judged by an electoral majority to be a good thing – we haven’t had such an opportunity with the carbon tax yet following Gillard’s lie immediately before the last election.
Anyhow, do you really believe the cost of living/CPI is only going to rise 0.7% as a result of the carbon tax? Have you seen the methodology that Treasury used? I am not going to speculate on what the eventual outcome is going to be. I merely wanted to point out Labor’s (I am sorry, I should say the minority government’s clean energy website) use of two different methods of predicting how much the carbon tax is going to affect us. If you are comfortable that CPI and cost of living are the same thing then I wouldn’t suggest you apply for a job with ABS. On the other hand Clean Energy would probably give you a guernsey.

dungfungus said :

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living
.

Yeah, so “vastly different” that many people call the CPI a “cost-of-living-Index”.

Thanks for pointing us at the cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (although you mistakenly called it an ALP website), I noticed it has the following line on it:

“The GST and related changes to the tax system pushed up prices more than three times as much as the carbon price is expected to.”

I assume you’re not a hypocrite and you complained 3x as strongly about the GST as you are about this carbon price?

According to Labor’s Clean Energy Website, the carbon tax will increase the CPI by 0.7% and the cost of living by 0.7%.
Do they know what they are talking about? The CPI is vastly different to the cost of living; the former being an indicator of price variations in a basket of selected items that is used as a benchmark for wage claims and rent increases and the latter is an actual figure showing the cost increases of everything.
Either Labor are having two bob each way so they can “cherrypick” the least worst outcome when they have to or maybe they are going to add both together if cascading price increases skews the outcome (still not publically released) that Treasury predicted.
It is time for the media to nail Labor on the doublespeak about the error on their Clean Energy website and get a clear statement from them.

lol, he’d drink the half full glass and go the solo knuckle within 5 mins.

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

davo101 said :

I like the implicit assumption that business-as-usual has no cost associated with it.

Inflation makes things more expensive, therefore we need to stop inflation at all costs!!! We need a big recession so things get cheaper.

I’m looking forward to a decent apocalypse.
Clearly the problem of human stupidity has no other realistic solution.
People too stupid to rely on themselves instead of foreign aid; people too stupid to be able to see a dead kangaroo without having a cry and people too stupid to figure out how to merge at a “lane one form” – they”ll all disappear once catastrophe overtakes us. What a relief that will be.

I love the way that of all the people in the world, only Henry BG remains, to feel relief at everyone else dying. How long before you start arguing with yourself, do you think?

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

davo101 said :

I like the implicit assumption that business-as-usual has no cost associated with it.

Inflation makes things more expensive, therefore we need to stop inflation at all costs!!! We need a big recession so things get cheaper.

I’m looking forward to a decent apocalypse.
Clearly the problem of human stupidity has no other realistic solution.
People too stupid to rely on themselves instead of foreign aid; people too stupid to be able to see a dead kangaroo without having a cry and people too stupid to figure out how to merge at a “lane one form” – they”ll all disappear once catastrophe overtakes us. What a relief that will be.

That’s what I love about you, you’re a ‘glass half full’ kinda guy.

Jim Jones said :

davo101 said :

I like the implicit assumption that business-as-usual has no cost associated with it.

Inflation makes things more expensive, therefore we need to stop inflation at all costs!!! We need a big recession so things get cheaper.

I’m looking forward to a decent apocalypse.
Clearly the problem of human stupidity has no other realistic solution.
People too stupid to rely on themselves instead of foreign aid; people too stupid to be able to see a dead kangaroo without having a cry and people too stupid to figure out how to merge at a “lane one form” – they”ll all disappear once catastrophe overtakes us. What a relief that will be.

The prime minister and the Mully Cup. Would she accept such a prestegious award?

or should I say, is she even eligible considering she is the PM

davo101 said :

I like the implicit assumption that business-as-usual has no cost associated with it.

Inflation makes things more expensive, therefore we need to stop inflation at all costs!!! We need a big recession so things get cheaper.

Jim Jones said :

Mr Gillespie said :

herp derp juLIAR herp derp

Gold.

HenryBG said :

Mr Gillespie said :

• Brick prices going up
• Steel prices going up
• Aluminium prices going up
• Electricity prices going up
Where does it end???

The “carbon tax” would have to be the most stupid and irresponsible schemes any government has imposed since federation. JuLIAR is going to cop such a beating when we next have a federal election. Madam Prime Mistress is not gonna know what’s hit her!

Yeah, and what about the printing press, putting all the monks and scribes out of business?

And threshing machines and steam engines – what a stupid and irresponsible scheme they turned out to be.

And the bicycle, putting all the horses out of business. Let’s vote Abbott so he can scrap them.

I like the implicit assumption that business-as-usual has no cost associated with it.

Mr Gillespie said :

• Brick prices going up
• Steel prices going up
• Aluminium prices going up
• Electricity prices going up
Where does it end???

The “carbon tax” would have to be the most stupid and irresponsible schemes any government has imposed since federation. JuLIAR is going to cop such a beating when we next have a federal election. Madam Prime Mistress is not gonna know what’s hit her!

Yeah, and what about the printing press, putting all the monks and scribes out of business?

And threshing machines and steam engines – what a stupid and irresponsible scheme they turned out to be.

And the bicycle, putting all the horses out of business. Let’s vote Abbott so he can scrap them.

Mr Gillespie said :

herp derp juLIAR herp derp

Mr Gillespie said :

• Brick prices going up
• Steel prices going up
• Aluminium prices going up
• Electricity prices going up
Where does it end???

Welcome to the 21st Century. You might like to fasten your seat belt as the ride only gets worse from here.

• Brick prices going up
• Steel prices going up
• Aluminium prices going up
• Electricity prices going up
Where does it end???

The “carbon tax” would have to be the most stupid and irresponsible schemes any government has imposed since federation. JuLIAR is going to cop such a beating when we next have a federal election. Madam Prime Mistress is not gonna know what’s hit her!

Despite the worthy and informative tone of many of the posts here ….. Mully for Julia …. surely!

staringclown said :

Diggety said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

Did you?

The International Energy Association (IEA)
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics’ (BREE)
US Dept of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) A private subscription based research and data provider on clean energy markets and investment. http://www.newenergyfinance.com/bnef/who-we-are/
The EU eurostat (bureau of statistics)
Simon Fraser University – The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC)
The Scottish Government – Energy in Scotland: A Compendium of Scottish Energy Statistics and Information
http://www.ren21.net/ An advocacy group for renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com A news organisation with a story about the german government abandoning nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.
The Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO)- A joint government/industry body that operates the south eastern power grid
The Australian Government Energy Regulator
The NSW Government City of sydney web site
http://reneweconomy.com.au/columnists Consultants to business on clean energy

Was there a point to your question?

And if actually read the BREE report (on which the authors rely) you’ll see that coal has not been dethroaned at all.

Are we closing down coal plants? No we are opening more.
Is solar displacing coal? No, it isn’t.
Is solar cheaper than coal? No, it isn’t.

Read the report, FFS.

And after you’re done reading that, read our Draft Energy White Paper.

Carbon capture and storage as baseload? Pfft.

The article claims that [i]new[/i] investment in solar generation is greater than that of coal. It doesn’t say that we aren’t building new coal power plants. As in (from the BREE report) the gross new coal development is 17% of the total of 2668 MW == 453MW. Solar PV has 837MW which wasn’t counted in the BREE paper. Do you have some specific dispute with the figures quoted in the report?

I think we might even agree D on the inefficiency of small scale solar and the subsidy afforded by the larger community to those that get the feedback tariffs. I don’t remember saying anywhere that solar/renewables were cheaper. When you don’t charge for a negative externality of course the price will be lower for coal. That’s the point of a carbon tax.

Sorry, you don’t get to publish a link to a draft energy report and paint me as agreeing with it champ. You don’t set my homework. But I do get to set yours. 🙂

Conservative professor favours carbon tax over ETS. Property rights are felt deep among the right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/a-conservatives-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/

Carbon sequestration is dead as disco. It was stillborn but maybe you weren’t involved in the debate back then. 😉

Staringclown, space flight is getting more investment, that doesn’t mean it is afforable, or dethroning anything really.

If you agree with the authors that “coal has been dethroned” based on relative investment ratios alone, I would say you certainly should read that Draft Energy White Paper– enjoy your homework.

(P.S. thanks for linking a article by a conservative in America, but I have no interest).

Diggety said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

Did you?

The International Energy Association (IEA)
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics’ (BREE)
US Dept of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) A private subscription based research and data provider on clean energy markets and investment. http://www.newenergyfinance.com/bnef/who-we-are/
The EU eurostat (bureau of statistics)
Simon Fraser University – The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC)
The Scottish Government – Energy in Scotland: A Compendium of Scottish Energy Statistics and Information
http://www.ren21.net/ An advocacy group for renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com A news organisation with a story about the german government abandoning nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.
The Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO)- A joint government/industry body that operates the south eastern power grid
The Australian Government Energy Regulator
The NSW Government City of sydney web site
http://reneweconomy.com.au/columnists Consultants to business on clean energy

Was there a point to your question?

And if actually read the BREE report (on which the authors rely) you’ll see that coal has not been dethroaned at all.

Are we closing down coal plants? No we are opening more.
Is solar displacing coal? No, it isn’t.
Is solar cheaper than coal? No, it isn’t.

Read the report, FFS.

And after you’re done reading that, read our Draft Energy White Paper.

Carbon capture and storage as baseload? Pfft.

The article claims that [i]new[/i] investment in solar generation is greater than that of coal. It doesn’t say that we aren’t building new coal power plants. As in (from the BREE report) the gross new coal development is 17% of the total of 2668 MW == 453MW. Solar PV has 837MW which wasn’t counted in the BREE paper. Do you have some specific dispute with the figures quoted in the report?

I think we might even agree D on the inefficiency of small scale solar and the subsidy afforded by the larger community to those that get the feedback tariffs. I don’t remember saying anywhere that solar/renewables were cheaper. When you don’t charge for a negative externality of course the price will be lower for coal. That’s the point of a carbon tax.

Sorry, you don’t get to publish a link to a draft energy report and paint me as agreeing with it champ. You don’t set my homework. But I do get to set yours. 🙂

Conservative professor favours carbon tax over ETS. Property rights are felt deep among the right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/a-conservatives-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/

Carbon sequestration is dead as disco. It was stillborn but maybe you weren’t involved in the debate back then. 😉

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

Did you?

The International Energy Association (IEA)
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics’ (BREE)
US Dept of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) A private subscription based research and data provider on clean energy markets and investment. http://www.newenergyfinance.com/bnef/who-we-are/
The EU eurostat (bureau of statistics)
Simon Fraser University – The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC)
The Scottish Government – Energy in Scotland: A Compendium of Scottish Energy Statistics and Information
http://www.ren21.net/ An advocacy group for renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com A news organisation with a story about the german government abandoning nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.
The Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO)- A joint government/industry body that operates the south eastern power grid
The Australian Government Energy Regulator
The NSW Government City of sydney web site
http://reneweconomy.com.au/columnists Consultants to business on clean energy

Was there a point to your question?

And if actually read the BREE report (on which the authors rely) you’ll see that coal has not been dethroaned at all.

Are we closing down coal plants? No we are opening more.
Is solar displacing coal? No, it isn’t.
Is solar cheaper than coal? No, it isn’t.

Read the report, FFS.

And after you’re done reading that, read our Draft Energy White Paper.

Carbon capture and storage as baseload? Pfft.

staringclown said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

And what conclusions did you derive from that article?

That some people are more intelligent than others.

Like who, and why?

Did you read the article and the reports they use?

Did you?

The International Energy Association (IEA)
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics’ (BREE)
US Dept of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) A private subscription based research and data provider on clean energy markets and investment. http://www.newenergyfinance.com/bnef/who-we-are/
The EU eurostat (bureau of statistics)
Simon Fraser University – The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC)
The Scottish Government – Energy in Scotland: A Compendium of Scottish Energy Statistics and Information
http://www.ren21.net/ An advocacy group for renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com A news organisation with a story about the german government abandoning nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.
The Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO)- A joint government/industry body that operates the south eastern power grid
The Australian Government Energy Regulator
The NSW Government City of sydney web site
http://reneweconomy.com.au/columnists Consultants to business on clean energy

Was there a point to your question?

And if actually read the BREE report (on which the authors rely) you’ll see that coal has not been dethroaned at all.

Are we closing down coal plants? No we are opening more.
Is solar displacing coal? No, it isn’t.
Is solar cheaper than coal? No, it isn’t.

Read the report, FFS.

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

And what conclusions did you derive from that article?

That some people are more intelligent than others.

Like who, and why?

Did you read the article and the reports they use?

Did you?

The International Energy Association (IEA)
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics’ (BREE)
US Dept of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) A private subscription based research and data provider on clean energy markets and investment. http://www.newenergyfinance.com/bnef/who-we-are/
The EU eurostat (bureau of statistics)
Simon Fraser University – The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC)
The Scottish Government – Energy in Scotland: A Compendium of Scottish Energy Statistics and Information
http://www.ren21.net/ An advocacy group for renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com A news organisation with a story about the german government abandoning nuclear power in favour of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass.
The Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO)- A joint government/industry body that operates the south eastern power grid
The Australian Government Energy Regulator
The NSW Government City of sydney web site
http://reneweconomy.com.au/columnists Consultants to business on clean energy

Was there a point to your question?

staringclown said :

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

And what conclusions did you derive from that article?

That some people are more intelligent than others.

Like who, and why?

Did you read the article and the reports they use?

Diggety said :

staringclown said :

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

And what conclusions did you derive from that article?

That some people are more intelligent than others.

staringclown said :

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

And what conclusions did you derive from that article?

Lovin’ Julia’s latest: “passenger movement charge” instead of “departure tax”. In the spirit of Jorian Gardner – golden turd?

An interesting read…

http://theconversation.edu.au/energy-myths-exposed-king-coal-or-king-solar-7611

Renewables are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more widespread

Many of the responses that challenged our article, and media discussions of the findings, simply said it could not be right. Coal is always the cheapest and renewables are inherently more expensive and unreliable, so they will not work in our grids. Some often went further and blamed rising power costs on renewables.

We would suggest this is simply wrong. The following data support the contention that renewable energy is rapidly being deployed both globally and within Australia. It is not expensive, especially when compared to peak power (a key contributor to increasing power costs over the past decade)

Diggety said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Tony Abbott

fixed it for you

Did Tony Abbott actually say that? Or are you making things up again?

Yes.

He said, and I quote, “Ah, ah, ah, the ah, sky will fall, ah, when we have a great big new tax on ah, ah, the sky, which ah, ah, is falling because of ah ah, Julia Gillard’s new tax on big ah, ah everythings.”

Well, maybe it was words to that effect.

To which Julia replied. “Oi buleev that werging families want more educagion and we will be moving forward on reforms becuase its the ride thing to do and we are going to ged it done because we are us and Tony Abbott is just doctor No and this is nod hyperbowl’.

I’m pretty certain that’s how I heard it.

Such great leaders to be inspired from, eh?…

We need Ari Gold to go through and paintball-fire all of them.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Tony Abbott

fixed it for you

Did Tony Abbott actually say that? Or are you making things up again?

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Chicken Little

Play school finished early today did it?

Jim Jones said :

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Chicken Little

Chicken Little was off on a paranoid trip caused by an acorn falling on her head.

Big difference between this and peer-reviewed science coming to a global consensus that’s so widespread that it’s impossible to find a government that doesn’t acknowledge the reality of climate change.

I think he’s referring to the “carbon tax will send us back to the stone age” paranoid people.

We should all heat our homes with wood fireplaces.

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Tony Abbott

fixed it for you

Chop71 said :

“the sky is falling”

Chicken Little

Chicken Little was off on a paranoid trip caused by an acorn falling on her head.

Big difference between this and peer-reviewed science coming to a global consensus that’s so widespread that it’s impossible to find a government that doesn’t acknowledge the reality of climate change.

“the sky is falling”

Chicken Little

Diggety said :

Diggety said :

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

.
Diggety, you seem to have failed to learn by your previous mistakes.

a) Economists have shown that it will be cheaper to spend money on renewables than to not spend money on renewables:
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

You didn’t get the chance to read that pdf before you posted it, did you Henry?

I thought I told you to read and understand every bit of literature you reference? A lot of people cite Nordhaus models (there are a few now), and like all economic models, some support them and some don’t. Some in favour of 100% renewable, some a mix of renewable and nuclear. But one thing is for certain, anyone worth listening to has actually read and understood it. All parties, whether they are right or wrong bother to read the literature—give the author the respect by doing the same please.

When you’ve read it, consider the following:
1/ Nordhaus’s models have not matched reality with technological predictions of trend on the costs and capabilities of renewable energy.
(This is why I have been trying to emphasise the cost barriers with renewables alone)

2/ Nordhaus’s models have not come close to including the economic participation, on which the models rely to work.
(Our carbon price won’t save mitigate climate change unless high emitters doing the same)

3/ The technological assumptions of Nordhaus are out-dated by now (in fact were between submission and publication).
(Nuclear energy in the model relied on outdated technology- luckily since then advanced reactors have been approved by the EU, US, Canada, China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia)

4/ Nordhaus models (and others) show that countries implementing carbon taxes are economically disadvantaged if other countries are not doing the same, and even further with disadvantaged technological options.
( Self explanatory I hope)

Now, compare our Carbon Tax and all the associated legislation, and think to yourself:

– Is this the the quickest way to decarbonise our economy?
– Is the carbon tax package more economically superior than our international competitors?
– Is this economically responsible?
– Do we allow the right technological tools to remedy this problem?
– Does this policy target emitters more than consumers?
– Does the carbon tax place majority of Australians in a better financial position?
– Have we determined the best way to modernise our energy infrastructure and supply?
– Did the Government model their costs and outcomes of the carbon tax well?

The answer, of course, in each case is ‘no’.

Excellent presentation addressing the real issues and how they will affect all the stakeholders. The carbon tax is a indeed a gigantic folly.

Diggety said :

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

.
Diggety, you seem to have failed to learn by your previous mistakes.

a) Economists have shown that it will be cheaper to spend money on renewables than to not spend money on renewables:
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

You didn’t get the chance to read that pdf before you posted it, did you Henry?

I thought I told you to read and understand every bit of literature you reference? A lot of people cite Nordhaus models (there are a few now), and like all economic models, some support them and some don’t. Some in favour of 100% renewable, some a mix of renewable and nuclear. But one thing is for certain, anyone worth listening to has actually read and understood it. All parties, whether they are right or wrong bother to read the literature—give the author the respect by doing the same please.

When you’ve read it, consider the following:
1/ Nordhaus’s models have not matched reality with technological predictions of trend on the costs and capabilities of renewable energy.
(This is why I have been trying to emphasise the cost barriers with renewables alone)

2/ Nordhaus’s models have not come close to including the economic participation, on which the models rely to work.
(Our carbon price won’t save mitigate climate change unless high emitters doing the same)

3/ The technological assumptions of Nordhaus are out-dated by now (in fact were between submission and publication).
(Nuclear energy in the model relied on outdated technology- luckily since then advanced reactors have been approved by the EU, US, Canada, China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia)

4/ Nordhaus models (and others) show that countries implementing carbon taxes are economically disadvantaged if other countries are not doing the same, and even further with disadvantaged technological options.
( Self explanatory I hope)

Now, compare our Carbon Tax and all the associated legislation, and think to yourself:

– Is this the the quickest way to decarbonise our economy?
– Is the carbon tax package more economically superior than our international competitors?
– Is this economically responsible?
– Do we allow the right technological tools to remedy this problem?
– Does this policy target emitters more than consumers?
– Does the carbon tax place majority of Australians in a better financial position?
– Have we determined the best way to modernise our energy infrastructure and supply?
– Did the Government model their costs and outcomes of the carbon tax well?

The answer, of course, in each case is ‘no’.

Can’t say I’m happy about paying an extra $8 a week in tax so the Labor party can distribut money to their client groups.

2604 said :

staringclown said :

I could go on – but life is too short.

I’m glad someone finally noticed.

Now that hurts.

Nylex said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

Lol.

That’s not an ‘opinion’, it’s a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory and will treated as such.

Next you’ll be whining that people here don’t ‘respect the opinions’ of scientologists, the birther-movement, 9-11 conspiricists and those who believe in the protocols of the elders of zion.

Honestly, all this hippy whining about ‘my precious (completely unsubstantiated and/or refudiated by big feckloads of scientific evidence) opinion’ is the most infantile thing here. If you have an opinion that’s completely ludicrous, expect to get called on it. No-one is immune from criticism just because ‘they have an opinion that has to be respected’.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

Way to prove his point.

Jim’s point is that the correct response to insane paranoid ranting is derision.
Gazket’s a nut.

It is not your opinions that are infantile, it is the way you express yourself. Public Education failed you badly.

Jim Jones said :

Yowie13 said :

The media knows what side their bread is buttered on so we see little evidence of dissenting science.

I take it that you’re unfamiliar with The Australian, HeraldSun, News.com.au, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail, Advertiser, Northern Territory News, Mercury, West Australian, Sunday Times (WA), the ABC, Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10, SBS, and every talkback radio station in the country.

Is this a contest to spot the odd man out?

staringclown said :

I could go on – but life is too short.

I’m glad someone finally noticed.

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

Now *that* is simply outstanding work.

Between the high number of responses on this thread, and Julia reference on the Jorian Gardner faux pas, surely Julia Gillard is on track for this month’s Mully?

HenryBG said :

staringclown said :

Yowie13 said :

We live in a relatively short, warm, interglacial period in an ice age. If we use data from Greenland ice cores we find that 2010, supposedly the hotest year on record, rates as the 9,099th hotest year in the last 10,000.

Easterbrook’s 2010 is the 9099th hottest year has been thoroughly debunked.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

He used the data from one ice core (that’s right – just one) and claimed it represented global temperatures.

He also tried to claim that the data he downloaded from the single ice core represented the global temperatures up to the present day. It doesn’t. It actually represents the local central Greenland temperature until 1855. So he’s missed the entire period encompassing most of the warming since the industrial revolution. I probably stop quoting his nonsense if I were you.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is — to put it bluntly — pure bullshit, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data. He should withdraw his article, and apologise to those he has mislead.

Wait till they tax the CO2 your pets, your children and you yourself exhale.

And you probably claim that climate scientists are alarmists.

I see.

So Yowie’s, “climate change is OK” was actually based on some pretty serious misinformation?

Is it at all possible for a pusher of the “climate change is crap” or “climate change is harmless” lines to push their position without resorting to misinformation?

It seems to me that there is a very strong correlation between wrongness and the people who don’t believe in science.

No I don’t think the “climate change is crap” crowd necessarily need to resort to misinformation. They could, if they wanted read the scientific literature and identify legitimate flaws in the assumptions, analysis or conclusions.

It’s not completely their fault. An 8th grade understanding of science doesn’t qualify them for much besides cutting and pasting spurious arguments that fit with their own bias.

The science is complex. The scientists struggle to explain the issue in laymans terms. Scientists speak of probabilities and not “facts”. Even when the probability of a temperature rise of between 1.1 – 6.4 degrees is predicted with 95% confidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html

This is of course unsurprising for anyone that understands scientific methodology. Statistical analysis of a complex system never yields a result of 100% certainty.

The other side are happy to speak of certainty. They don’t require reason because their audience isn’t other scientists, it’s the general public who have limited understanding of science and no real ability to scrutinise the differing views.

I can’t think of many other branches of science that have every man and their dog believing that they know better. Those other scientists only have their peers to fear.

Yowie apparently believes that the impact of ice ages although obvious to her has been missed completely by climate scientists in spite of the fact that the climate scientists produced the data which she cites.

When challenged on one claim she uses the classic bait and switch tactic.

It’s sunspots

Unlikely…

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

It’s changed before

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Plants love CO2

A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg – migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm

There’s no consensus….

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

I could go on – but life is too short.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Yowie13 said :

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that debunk AGW. I like one from 2009 that takes a physics perspective.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

All fascinating, but, and it pains me to tell you this, the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper was *not* peer reviewed in the normal sense of the phrase.

the paper has been widely criticised in scientific circles, not because of any conspiracy, but because of countless errors. They basically claim that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is violating the second law of thermodynamics.

In other words, the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper is a crank paper.

Funny how climate change denial strongly correlates with cranks, don’t you think?

Got anything left, Yowie, or is that your load done?

Yowie13 said :

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that debunk AGW. I like one from 2009 that takes a physics perspective.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

All fascinating, but, and it pains me to tell you this, the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper was *not* peer reviewed in the normal sense of the phrase.

the paper has been widely criticised in scientific circles, not because of any conspiracy, but because of countless errors. They basically claim that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Yowie… Gish Gallop away.

But if you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics means no warming, maybe you could read this a bit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm

Yowie13 said :

The media knows what side their bread is buttered on so we see little evidence of dissenting science.

I take it that you’re unfamiliar with The Australian, HeraldSun, News.com.au, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail, Advertiser, Northern Territory News, Mercury, West Australian, Sunday Times (WA), the ABC, Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10, SBS, and every talkback radio station in the country.

Yowie13 said :

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe

Also that whole evolution thing is a gigantic scam:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former US Vice President Al Gore. A 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that debunk AGW. I like one from 2009 that takes a physics perspective.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner.
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

The media knows what side their bread is buttered on so we see little evidence of dissenting science. The big energy companies have invested in so called green energy so they win either way. Let’s go green and have an econommy like Spain. Spain had a target of 20% green energy and got to around 12%. For every green job created 2.5 jobs elsewhere were lost and once you build your wind farms and solar arrays you only need 10% of the workforce to maintain and monitor them so most of those jobs will be lost as well

Yowie13 said :

And while on the subject of CO2 levels why is it that it is only measured at one spot on the planet.

Which spot are you thinking of?
Cape Grim?
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Jubany, Antarctica?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Monthly.jpg

Baring Head, NZ?
http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/81154

Amsterdam Island?
http://mapserver.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcmd-open/mmorahan/amstergr.gif

Mt. Cimone?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mtcimone.gif

Or is it one of these other 8 sites you’re thinking of?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html

Yowie13 said :

A spot that happens to be in direct line of site from one of the most consistently active volcanoes on the planet (which is a good source of CO2), K?lauea.

Pretty spooky how the volcano on Hawaii causes *ALL* the world’s many, many atmospheric monitoring stations to show the same thing, huh?
I guess that volcano’s in on the UN conspiracy.

Yowie13 said :

Also our seas and oceans are large CO2 sinks, warm water releases CO2 faster, cold water releases CO2 slower… So one would logically think that the seas off Greenland would be releasing less CO2 near Greenland than the seas near Hawaii.

Pretty spooky how the many atmospheric monitoring stations in the Arctic and Antarctic are showing the same thing as what Mauna Loa is showing, huh?

It’s almost as if scientists actually know what they are doing, eh?

Tell me, Yowie, does being wrong – again – embarrass you at all?

This is going to be fun….

Meh, not really.

Who you gonna believe: all the scientists (with the exception of a tiny number who get a lot of press in The Australian), or some dude in a forum who reckons that it’s all a gigantic conspiracy and offers as his riposte to peer reviewed evidence a suggestion that people putting a bottle of soda water in the fridge?

As for Climate Change, if you believe you should stop using “Climate Change”. You should go back to AGW “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Climate Change is real and mostly natural, AGW is a fantasy. CO2 is not the boogie man here; it is a gas that is necessary for all life on earth. Most of our modern day plants evolved in an environment of 1,000 to 1,200ppm or more of CO2 and are starving for more CO2, that’s why commercial greenhouses often pump in CO2 to achieve the 1,200ppm. Plants grow larger, quicker and use less water with more CO2. If you drop the CO2 below 200ppm most plants die.

It’s funny how most scientists who disagree with AGW are retired or do not work for academic or government institutions. But then again it isn’t funny. Once upon a time if you worked in Academia it was publish or perish, now it’s bring in funding or perish and far more funding is available to prove AGW than to disprove it, despite what the AGW alarmists would have you believe. And if you work for Government and disagree with AGW you will find yourself marginalised and ultimately without a job. And try paying a mortgage off on Newstart. Look at Dr McDougall, a chief research scientist with CSIRO’s marine and atmospheric research division in Hobart who was made redundant less than six months after he received one of the world’s most prestigious ocean sciences awards, the Prince Albert Medal (and the first Australian to be awarded the medal). Redundant because he couldn’t tow the party line.

And while on the subject of CO2 levels why is it that it is only measured at one spot on the planet. A spot that happens to be in direct line of site from one of the most consistently active volcanoes on the planet (which is a good source of CO2), K?lauea. K?lauea has been in continual eruption since 1983. Then scientific boffins compare CO2 readings from Kilauea with historic Greenland ice core data to show that it’s higher now. Why is that a problem? I can see a couple of reasons. When Sciences started blossoming in the 18th and 19th centuries ouratmosphere was sampled in hundreds if not thousands of places. Resulting CO2 levels were both higher and lower than currently showing CO2 is not constant around the planet. Also our seas and oceans are large CO2 sinks, warm water releases CO2 faster, cold water releases CO2 slower, try it yourself, get 2 bottles of soda water, chill one overnight in the fridge leave the other at room temperature, open both and see which one outgasses quicker. So one would logically think that the seas off Greenland would be releasing less CO2 near Greenland than the seas near Hawaii.

Yowie13 said :

The Climate is cyclical. blahblah.

Yowie, how do you respond to the revelations that you have peddled misinformation here?

Before you treat us to any more of your dodgy opinions, are you going to apologise for trying to mislead the readers of this board by republishing false and incorrect and untrue information from Don Easterbrook?

Once you’ve done that, we can examine each of your latest assertions which are again some obviously wrong rehashing of long-disproven denialist lies.

Who do you work for, Yowie?

The Climate is cyclical. Ice core data shows that CO2 rises lag temperature rises, not vice verca as shown in the Al Gore propoganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth”. It’s easy to show warming when data is cherry picked. Numerous pro warming groups have been shown to throw out data that contradicts their agenda (IPCC, CRU and many more probably including our own CSIRO). A group in the US recently visited over 90% of the weather stations in the US. Of those sites around 90% didn’t meet the standards set down for their siting. I doubt whether the situation is any better here. All these siting issues favoured showing increased warming.

The climate is cyclical our oceans have a 25-30 cycle that produces warming and cooling on land. From the 1940’s through to the late 1970’s even though CO2 was increasing, temperatures were decreasing, so much so that “Global Cooling” was “The Issue” of the 1970s.

While the climate is cyclical, we have been experiencing warming since around 1850, when the world finally came out of what what was known as the “Little Ice Age” which began somewhere around 1350. Prior to this little ice age vinyards existed in Central Europe some 220m higher in altitude than currently, indicating that our climate may have been warmer 700 years ago than it is now. Data from ice cores also shows this.

There is a strong correlation beween sunspot acivity and warming and cooling cycles on the earth. Even Benjamin Franklin noted the correlation between the number of sunspots and wheat prices, more sunspots lower prices due to abundance, less sunspots higher prices due to shortage. NASA is now predicting our current sunspot cycle 24 will be the weakest in over 100 years and that because of the changes they are seeing in our sun the next cycle is likely to be even weaker.

And by the way even if temperatures went up by 3 degrees C world wide we would still be way off melting the Antarctic. The average daily temperatures at McMurdo Sound (Coastal) in December and Jaunary are -3.4 and -2.9 respectively and at the south pole -27.5 and -28.2 for December and Jaunary.

A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing using NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 shows the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

And for all those advocating Wind and Solar, where do we get our base load power from. The only 2 sources I know of are Coal & Nuclear. If you support Nuclear we can store the waste at your place. By the way in the next 12 months China will turn on more MW of new Coal fired power stations than Australia’s total MW output from all sources so who are we kidding with a carbon tax. Price our manufacturing out of existance, move all of it to China and Australia can become one large open cut mine providing foreign countries with raw materials and funny animals to gawk at when they come here on holidays.

staringclown said :

Yowie13 said :

We live in a relatively short, warm, interglacial period in an ice age. If we use data from Greenland ice cores we find that 2010, supposedly the hotest year on record, rates as the 9,099th hotest year in the last 10,000.

Easterbrook’s 2010 is the 9099th hottest year has been thoroughly debunked.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

He used the data from one ice core (that’s right – just one) and claimed it represented global temperatures.

He also tried to claim that the data he downloaded from the single ice core represented the global temperatures up to the present day. It doesn’t. It actually represents the local central Greenland temperature until 1855. So he’s missed the entire period encompassing most of the warming since the industrial revolution. I probably stop quoting his nonsense if I were you.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is — to put it bluntly — pure bullshit, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data. He should withdraw his article, and apologise to those he has mislead.

Wait till they tax the CO2 your pets, your children and you yourself exhale.

And you probably claim that climate scientists are alarmists.

I see.

So Yowie’s, “climate change is OK” was actually based on some pretty serious misinformation?

Is it at all possible for a pusher of the “climate change is crap” or “climate change is harmless” lines to push their position without resorting to misinformation?

It seems to me that there is a very strong correlation between wrongness and the people who don’t believe in science.

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

Lol.

That’s not an ‘opinion’, it’s a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory and will treated as such.

Next you’ll be whining that people here don’t ‘respect the opinions’ of scientologists, the birther-movement, 9-11 conspiricists and those who believe in the protocols of the elders of zion.

Honestly, all this hippy whining about ‘my precious (completely unsubstantiated and/or refudiated by big feckloads of scientific evidence) opinion’ is the most infantile thing here. If you have an opinion that’s completely ludicrous, expect to get called on it. No-one is immune from criticism just because ‘they have an opinion that has to be respected’.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

Way to prove his point.

Jim’s point is that the correct response to insane paranoid ranting is derision.
Gazket’s a nut.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Is it wrong that gazket posts make lol?

I mean him obviously being special and all. We need licenses for the inter webs.

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

Lol.

That’s not an ‘opinion’, it’s a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory and will treated as such.

Next you’ll be whining that people here don’t ‘respect the opinions’ of scientologists, the birther-movement, 9-11 conspiricists and those who believe in the protocols of the elders of zion.

Honestly, all this hippy whining about ‘my precious (completely unsubstantiated and/or refudiated by big feckloads of scientific evidence) opinion’ is the most infantile thing here. If you have an opinion that’s completely ludicrous, expect to get called on it. No-one is immune from criticism just because ‘they have an opinion that has to be respected’.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

Do you know what incorrigible means? (answer in 10 words or less please)

Yowie13 said :

We live in a relatively short, warm, interglacial period in an ice age. If we use data from Greenland ice cores we find that 2010, supposedly the hotest year on record, rates as the 9,099th hotest year in the last 10,000.

Easterbrook’s 2010 is the 9099th hottest year has been thoroughly debunked.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

He used the data from one ice core (that’s right – just one) and claimed it represented global temperatures.

He also tried to claim that the data he downloaded from the single ice core represented the global temperatures up to the present day. It doesn’t. It actually represents the local central Greenland temperature until 1855. So he’s missed the entire period encompassing most of the warming since the industrial revolution. I probably stop quoting his nonsense if I were you.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is — to put it bluntly — pure bullshit, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data. He should withdraw his article, and apologise to those he has mislead.

Wait till they tax the CO2 your pets, your children and you yourself exhale.

And you probably claim that climate scientists are alarmists.

Is it wrong that gazket posts make lol?

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

Lol.

That’s not an ‘opinion’, it’s a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory and will treated as such.

Next you’ll be whining that people here don’t ‘respect the opinions’ of scientologists, the birther-movement, 9-11 conspiricists and those who believe in the protocols of the elders of zion.

Honestly, all this hippy whining about ‘my precious (completely unsubstantiated and/or refudiated by big feckloads of scientific evidence) opinion’ is the most infantile thing here. If you have an opinion that’s completely ludicrous, expect to get called on it. No-one is immune from criticism just because ‘they have an opinion that has to be respected’.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

Way to prove his point.

Chip said :

If you really are under threat from inevitable rising prices then let’s have some solutions rather than arguing about climate change and carbon tax. And understand that there is zero chance that power prices will go down if there is a change of government. The world may not seem fair but it’s real so deal with it. Change your power usage habits, cut down that tree that stops the sun heating your house, get some decent ug boots or give up something discretionary if not willing or able to cut power usage. Any other cost effective ideas for dealing with this monster?

OK – how about we keep the carbon tax, but require that all revenue raised be used to directly support government sponsored R&D, with renewable energy generation infrastructure funded from said revenue once initial development is complete.

I suspect we could probably do reasonably well in terms of renewable energy infrastructure if we were prepared, as a country, to commit several billion dollars per year for the next several decades to implementing new solutions. As an added benefit, such projects would create many such jobs for a range of people which would help economic growth.

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

Lol.

That’s not an ‘opinion’, it’s a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theory and will treated as such.

Next you’ll be whining that people here don’t ‘respect the opinions’ of scientologists, the birther-movement, 9-11 conspiricists and those who believe in the protocols of the elders of zion.

Honestly, all this hippy whining about ‘my precious (completely unsubstantiated and/or refudiated by big feckloads of scientific evidence) opinion’ is the most infantile thing here. If you have an opinion that’s completely ludicrous, expect to get called on it. No-one is immune from criticism just because ‘they have an opinion that has to be respected’.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.

If you really are under threat from inevitable rising prices then let’s have some solutions rather than arguing about climate change and carbon tax. And understand that there is zero chance that power prices will go down if there is a change of government. The world may not seem fair but it’s real so deal with it. Change your power usage habits, cut down that tree that stops the sun heating your house, get some decent ug boots or give up something discretionary if not willing or able to cut power usage. Any other cost effective ideas for dealing with this monster?

Jim Jones said :

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

It is becoming a contest between you and HenryBG to see who is the most infantile. If some of us don’t agree with your opinions then there is no need to have a dummy spit everytime.

SMH says that my electricity prices will be going up by over 19%. And about half that increase is to pay for yet more infrastructure, poles and wires. For population growth (and increased demand, f-ing air conditioners).

We already had a series of massive increases for the same thing a year or so back.

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

And the pyramids are aligned with the stars demonstrating that the world will end very very soon … of course don’t think about this without having your tin foil hat on because the alien invaders will discover that you know THE TRUTH and black helicopters from the UN one world communist government will take you away and put radio transmitters in your teeth.

gazket said :

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

My, my, just brilliant. “Sea levels haven’t risen”, if you ask the right oyster farmer. “Alien guide to the world”. Lol. Must be funny/scary being inside *your* head.

We really need to do away with democracy and replace it with a technocracy where decisions are based on evidence, so lawyers and failed priests who’ve never had a real job in their lives are in no danger of being elected by morons to run the country.

Just in case you’re interested in why sea level rise is a bad thing for our economy, here is some detail from the UNSW:
https://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/resources/articles/coastal_aquifers.html

HenryBG said :

They are higher than they’ve been for 100,000 years.

Our civilisation has been around for 500 years.
Agriculture has been around for 4,000 years.
Humans have been around for 70,000 years.

Whatever happened before all of this is not particularly relevant to the effects that the current unprecedented rise in CO2 is projected to have on the way we do our business.

Excluding the data previous to a point that suits you is not exactly scientific. We know CO2 has risen (relatively) recently, but also that it has previously been much higher.

The climate is changing, as it always has. Humans are probably contributing to this, although by exactly how much is not certain.

The question is not whether climate change will hurt us, but rather how we will adapt both through altering our levels of energy use and emissions, and changing how we live to take climate change into account.

FWIW, I’m not a fan of the fixation we have on carbon. There are other common gases (like water vapour) that are much more harmful when considered in context. We need to be taking a wider view of the whole issue.

Jim Jones said :

Diggety said :

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

Always thought that electricity prices were going up primarily because of network and infrastructure costs. Renewables aren’t yet cheap (or as cheap as the alternative anyway).

Upgrades, yes. It’s all in the report I mentioned*.

Now try to extrapolate these observed costs to a 100% renewable energy grid.

* I linked the NSW report, because that is where our electricity is generated.

HenryBG said :

Yowie13 said :

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas. But it’s effect is not linear, the first 20ppm has more effect than the next 400ppm.

That’s why the doubling of CO2 concentration from where it was last century to where it will be in a couple of decades will only raise the global temperature by about 3 degrees.

Of course, as we’re seeing, this is more than enough to melt most of the ice over the Arctic ocean, wipe out the Antarctic peninsula ice shelves, and enough to cause 98% of the world’s glaciers to recede.
The big problem will be as Greenland continues to shed its massive ice cap.
Some of us will live long enough to see close to a 1-metre rise in sea levels.
A couple of generations beyond that and the sea level will have gone up 6 metres.

Yowie13 said :

And lets not bring up Venus as an example of runaway greenhouse effect.

a. We don’t need to now, thanks.
b. Why not?

You’ve just referred to the non-linear relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature – presumably in a bid to imply that the earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” and therefore more CO2 will do no harm, and then you go and mention a nearby planet, similar to ours, where the CO2 concentration rose way above ours with the effect of giving Venus a permanent 300-degree ambient temperature.

Yowie13 said :

No wonder CO2 levels now are amonst the lowest in our planets history.

What on earth does that mean?.

CO2 levels now are higher than they have been at any time during our species’ existence, and tens of thousands of years before that.
That also goes for all the species of food-plant which our species has deliberately bred in the last few thousand years.

And CO2 is just one of several potential limiting factors to plant growth. All the CO2 in the world isn’t going to help the millions of farmers of Bangladesh when their arable land goes under water.

Ultimately, we can believe proper scientists and economists on this, or we can believe internet cranks who can’t even use apostrophes properly.

don’t pull the Greenland bulls***. it’s been proven they adjusted the ice maps to suit global warming arguments and now we are turning into Venus. you are quoting scare tactics from the Bob Brown alien guide to the world. sea levels haven’t risen either just ask any oyster farmer look at the Fort Denison tide charts. I hope you go bankrupt running for the ACT election

johnboy said :

Well, we already see 1m sea level rises every day. It’s called the tide.

“Sea-level rise, combined with more severe weather events caused by climate change, will lead to storm surges that will greatly magnify flooding and erosion along coastal communities”

http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine–Atmospheric-Research/Climate-Change-Technical-Report-2007.aspx

But what would all those guys with PhDs know, eh?
After all, Andrew Bolt tells us they are all wrong, and you can trust what Andrew Bolt tells you, because he dropped out of uni to scribble columns for Rupert Murdoch, and he would never lie to you either.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

HenryBG said :

Yowie13 said :

No wonder CO2 levels now are amonst the lowest in our planets history.

What on earth does that mean?.

CO2 levels now are higher than they have been at any time during our species’ existence, and tens of thousands of years before that.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

I think you’ll find that CO2 levels are actually pretty low when considered in the longer term.

They are higher than they’ve been for 100,000 years.

Our civilisation has been around for 500 years.
Agriculture has been around for 4,000 years.
Humans have been around for 70,000 years.

Whatever happened before all of this is not particularly relevant to the effects that the current unprecedented rise in CO2 is projected to have on the way we do our business.

It’s disappointing to see that even those who have broken free from the oil-industry sponsored “climate change is crap” nonsense have swallowed, hook line and sinker, the oil-industry-sponsored “climate change won’t hurt us” nonsense.

Diggety said :

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

.
Diggety, you seem to have failed to learn by your previous mistakes.

a) Economists have shown that it will be cheaper to spend money on renewables than to not spend money on renewables:
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

b) GLobally, energy prices have skyrocketed since 2000
eg oil,
http://www.crmw.org/Newsletter/Photos/RisingEnergyPricesLarge.gif
and gas,
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/ngprice92_pres.jpg

Was this caused by Julia Gillard’s Carbon tax?

Every lie-spreading rightard worth his salt is currently blaming everything on the carbon tax.
They’re all going to look pretty silly when 1 July arrives and the world fails to end.

Diggety said :

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

Always thought that electricity prices were going up primarily because of network and infrastructure costs. Renewables aren’t yet cheap (or as cheap as the alternative anyway).

This is all pretty common knowledge, no?

IPART’s report on changes in NSW electricity prices from July 2012 give more detail on why prices are going up

@HenryBG, best you don’t read it because it explains why your “renewables are cheap, if you disagree you listen to Alan Jones, read Andrew Bolt and vote for Tony Abbott blah blah blah” theory is bullsh*t.

PantsMan said :

Just imagine how the world would be better now had the dinosaurs had a carbon tax (or a least 1.4% of them). They would not have been wiped out in an ice age.

http://gawker.com/5901246/new-thing-to-worry-about-monstrous-cunning-space-dinosaurs

Just imagine how the world would be better now had the dinosaurs had a carbon tax (or a least 1.4% of them). They would not have been wiped out in an ice age.

HenryBG said :

Yowie13 said :

No wonder CO2 levels now are amonst the lowest in our planets history.

What on earth does that mean?.

CO2 levels now are higher than they have been at any time during our species’ existence, and tens of thousands of years before that.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

I think you’ll find that CO2 levels are actually pretty low when considered in the longer term.

So JB, you reckon I can claim a carbon credit for the 1m drop in sea level overnight?

Yowie13 said :

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas. But it’s effect is not linear, the first 20ppm has more effect than the next 400ppm.

That’s why the doubling of CO2 concentration from where it was last century to where it will be in a couple of decades will only raise the global temperature by about 3 degrees.

Of course, as we’re seeing, this is more than enough to melt most of the ice over the Arctic ocean, wipe out the Antarctic peninsula ice shelves, and enough to cause 98% of the world’s glaciers to recede.
The big problem will be as Greenland continues to shed its massive ice cap.
Some of us will live long enough to see close to a 1-metre rise in sea levels.
A couple of generations beyond that and the sea level will have gone up 6 metres.

Yowie13 said :

And lets not bring up Venus as an example of runaway greenhouse effect.

a. We don’t need to now, thanks.
b. Why not?

You’ve just referred to the non-linear relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature – presumably in a bid to imply that the earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” and therefore more CO2 will do no harm, and then you go and mention a nearby planet, similar to ours, where the CO2 concentration rose way above ours with the effect of giving Venus a permanent 300-degree ambient temperature.

Yowie13 said :

No wonder CO2 levels now are amonst the lowest in our planets history.

What on earth does that mean?.

CO2 levels now are higher than they have been at any time during our species’ existence, and tens of thousands of years before that.
That also goes for all the species of food-plant which our species has deliberately bred in the last few thousand years.

And CO2 is just one of several potential limiting factors to plant growth. All the CO2 in the world isn’t going to help the millions of farmers of Bangladesh when their arable land goes under water.

Ultimately, we can believe proper scientists and economists on this, or we can believe internet cranks who can’t even use apostrophes properly.

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas. But it’s effect is not linear, the first 20ppm has more effect than the next 400ppm. And lets not bring up Venus as an example of runaway greenhouse effect. There is a large difference between 400ppm (or our current0.04%), 1,200ppm (when most of our modern plants evolved), and even 6,000ppm (when dinosaurs ruled the earth), and the 960,000ppm (or 96%) of Venus.

We live in a relatively short, warm, interglacial period in an ice age. If we use data from Greenland ice cores we find that 2010, supposedly the hotest year on record, rates as the 9,099th hotest year in the last 10,000. 3 Million years ago forrests flourished 600km from the south pole, but for the last 2.5 million years we have been in an ice age. We can tell we are still in this ice age as we have extensive glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Over the last 400,000 years or so this ice age has been characterised by periods of extensive glaciation lasting around 100,000 years, with short, warm, interglacial periods of aroud 10,000-12,000 years. During the depths of the last period of glaciation, glaciers existed in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania and Canberra’s temperatures averaged 9 degrees C colder than present day, the planet was 10 degrees C colder on average. Polar bears didn’t exist 3 million years ago, the oldest fosills are 130,000 years old and it’s believed they diverged from brown bears only 600,000 years ago.

Our seas and oceans are large CO2 sinks, as they cool they absorb CO2 when they heat they release CO2. Over the last 2.5 million years they have spent far more time absorbing then they have had releasing. No wonder CO2 levels now are amonst the lowest in our planets history. Our plants crave more CO2, they evolved when levels were far higher than they are now. Commercial greenhouses often pump in CO2 to levels up to 1,200ppm. Plants in that environment grow faster, larger, yield more and use less water. Even NASA has admitted in the 50 years they have been viewing our planet from space that it greener now than it was 50 years ago.

CO2 is not a boogie man. The carbon tax is a grab for cash. Wait till they tax the CO2 your pets, your children and you yourself exhale. Note the change from “global warming” to “climate change”, Funny thing that with all this supposed warming and claims of more extreme weather why are all of the continental heat records old (Africa 1922, Antarctica 1974, Asia 1942, Australia 1960, Europe 1881, North America 1913, South America1905).

Yes, silent…

http://greens.org.au/search/node/csg

I moved from a CSG area a year ago. The Greens were more active there than the Nationals in relation to threat to farmland until the Qld election finally prompted some movement.

gazket said :

If we have to cut emissions why are the Watermelon Greens silent on coal seam gas fields destroying farm land. hypocrites

herp derp communists

GBT said :

Chop71 said :

“there will be no carbon tax ……”

What would you like people to call her?

Hopeful of a cap and trade system as opposed to just taxing emissions, but the liberals and greens did away with any chance of that happening.

The policy & legislation is for an initial fixed price period (‘carbon tax’), then a move to a cap and trade emissions trading regime. Baby steps, but steps all the same.

I’d personally prefer to have no price/emissions ‘ceiling’ in the ETS period, to allow voluntary action within scheme coverage to have the effect of retiring permits ahead of the target schedule, but what we’ve got is at least the beginning of a sensible, incremental approach to putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

And if the alternative is a vastly more expensive, pick-winners, ‘direct action’ policy based on magic thinking (like $8 a tonne soil carbon abatement from generous farmers) to achieve the same target reduction… even the current, flawed, policy is a clear winner.

gazket said :

If we have to cut emissions why are the Watermelon Greens silent on coal seam gas fields destroying farm land. hypocrites

Hmmm. Why don’t we find out?

gazket said :

If we have to cut emissions why are the Watermelon Greens silent on coal seam gas fields destroying farm land. hypocrites

They are not silent on coal seam gas. Far from it. Especially in Queensland, it’s been the Greens and the far-right/Katterite mob, plus Shut the Gate, rather than the LNP & ALP that have been most active on CSG issues.

At the Federal level, the Greens have a position that the science on community & environmental safety of CSG, including for groundwater, needs to happen before the gates open up for wholesale CSG development. Ahead of that, there should be a CSG moratorium (5 year). You can read more about their stance on CSG at http://greens.org.au/content/greens-move-five-year-moratorium-coal-seam-gas-0

FWIW, I disagree that CSG is that big a deal & don’t support the Greens’ position, which I think is too influenced by the history of chemicals-related problems in US fracking for CSG (stuff which isn’t legal to do in Australia). But that’s by-the-by. Suffice to say, there is a Green policy on CSG, at State and Federal levels, and they’ve been early-movers on these issues.

If we have to cut emissions why are the Watermelon Greens silent on coal seam gas fields destroying farm land. hypocrites

Julia Gillard theme song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUa6ScIsIhQ

Chop71 said :

“there will be no carbon tax ……”

What would you like people to call her?

Hopeful of a cap and trade system as opposed to just taxing emissions, but the liberals and greens did away with any chance of that happening.

HenryBG said :

gazket said :

I’m single construction worker . I work for wages and am not worthy of any compensation for carbon tax. Juliar’s supporters are saying we are getting tax cuts, bullshit income tax is going up 2%. The gov gets 4 months of my wages in tax and it’s still not enough for the greedy bastards.

Labour couldn’t run a bath, don’t let the door hit your massive arse on the way out bitch. If I had a 200k pay rise like Gilliard I wouldn’t care about paying for a carbon tax either

So you earn enough to not need any help paying an extra $10 a week? Lucky you! Many people aren’t so fortunate.

Calling the PM a “bitch” is a bit of a dead giveaway about your personality, though.

Can’t imagine why he’s single.

“there will be no carbon tax ……”

What would you like people to call her?

gazket said :

I’m single construction worker . I work for wages and am not worthy of any compensation for carbon tax. Juliar’s supporters are saying we are getting tax cuts, bullshit income tax is going up 2%. The gov gets 4 months of my wages in tax and it’s still not enough for the greedy bastards.

Labour couldn’t run a bath, don’t let the door hit your massive arse on the way out bitch. If I had a 200k pay rise like Gilliard I wouldn’t care about paying for a carbon tax either

You do realise there is an increase in the tax free threshold for income tax?

From the package (http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/household-assistance-%e2%80%93-support-for-working-australians/):

“From 1 July 2012, new tax cuts will reward hard work and provide assistance through to the third year of the carbon price, from day one of the carbon price.

•People with annual income of $25,000 will receive a tax cut of $503.
•Those on middle incomes within the range of $30,000 and $65,000 will receive a tax cut of $303.
The top 23 per cent of taxpayers with annual income of over $80,000 will also get a slight tax reduction.

The tax cuts will be delivered through an increase in the tax free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200. This means workers earning less than $18,200 won’t have any income tax withheld from their regular pay.

When combined with the low income tax offset (LITO), workers won’t pay any net tax until they earn $20,542.

The tax cuts are permanent and will flow automatically into regular pay packets from 1 July 2012″

gazket said :

I’m single construction worker . I work for wages and am not worthy of any compensation for carbon tax. Juliar’s supporters are saying we are getting tax cuts, bullshit income tax is going up 2%. The gov gets 4 months of my wages in tax and it’s still not enough for the greedy bastards.

Labour couldn’t run a bath, don’t let the door hit your massive arse on the way out bitch. If I had a 200k pay rise like Gilliard I wouldn’t care about paying for a carbon tax either

So you earn enough to not need any help paying an extra $10 a week? Lucky you! Many people aren’t so fortunate.

Calling the PM a “bitch” is a bit of a dead giveaway about your personality, though.

GBT said :

Anyone actually using the name “JuLiar” or the phrase “if global warming exists, why isn’t the planet getting warmer” have already torpedoed any following argument by sounding like an uninformed idiot who can’t even form a cohesive argument.

And should be made to pay a “dumbing down Australia tax” of shall we say $200 a year?

GBT said :

Anyone actually using the name “JuLiar” … have already torpedoed any following argument by sounding like an uninformed idiot who can’t even form a cohesive argument.

JuLiar.

pajs said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

“climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative”

You keep telling yourself that.

Any concept that uses computer modeled outcomes is speculative Jimbo. I can’t help it if you are a slow learner.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat that would otherwise leave the planetary system. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is trapping more heat, causing the planet to warm.

All of that is basic, observational science. Direct observations. Basic physics. Basic chemistry. No dependance on computer models needed.

Suggesting you can continue to increase emissions of greenhouse gases and not heat the planet requires overturning many lines of independent evidence & direct observation, as well as basic physics and chemistry. That’s quite an ask.

Actually, it’s entirely possible, by changing the amount of other gases in the atmosphere.
(Not that this is necessarily a desirable solution, of course).

Anyone actually using the name “JuLiar” or the phrase “if global warming exists, why isn’t the planet getting warmer” have already torpedoed any following argument by sounding like an uninformed idiot who can’t even form a cohesive argument.

Chop71 said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

So, that’s the price increase in electricity taken car of. Where is the “compensation” coming from for the price increases in everything else then?

I believe they have promised to get rid of Stamp Duty to compensate us for the Big New Tax (which is going to destroy civilisation and swend the economy back to the stone age.)

Chop71 said :

Read between the lines…. NSW has to supply a grid all over the state. Large land areas with many regional populations. I’d say the cost of infastructure in the ACT per resident/land area would actually enforce is to have much cheaper electricity than NSW and other states.

Yes, because the electricity that ACTEW distributes is produced and supplied by,……..

Well, if we were allowed to produce our own, maybe prices could actually fall. Now that would be an ACT 1st.

Check a wind map – building turbines here wouldn’t be the best use of money when you can go to Bungendore or Crookwell and get 3x the average windspeed, and hence a better return on your investment.

Oh, and the government tried to build a gas turbine next to the tip – Zed Seselja and his team got together with a bunch of stupid nimbys and scuppered what would have been an excellent deal for the ACT.

gazket said :

I’m single construction worker . I work for wages and am not worthy of any compensation for carbon tax. Juliar’s supporters are saying we are getting tax cuts, bullshit income tax is going up 2%. The gov gets 4 months of my wages in tax and it’s still not enough for the greedy bastards.

Labour couldn’t run a bath, don’t let the door hit your massive arse on the way out bitch. If I had a 200k pay rise like Gilliard I wouldn’t care about paying for a carbon tax either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzQKECQgjW8

I’m single construction worker . I work for wages and am not worthy of any compensation for carbon tax. Juliar’s supporters are saying we are getting tax cuts, bullshit income tax is going up 2%. The gov gets 4 months of my wages in tax and it’s still not enough for the greedy bastards.

Labour couldn’t run a bath, don’t let the door hit your massive arse on the way out bitch. If I had a 200k pay rise like Gilliard I wouldn’t care about paying for a carbon tax either

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

So, that’s the price increase in electricity taken car of. Where is the “compensation” coming from for the price increases in everything else then?

I believe they have promised to get rid of Stamp Duty to compensate us for the Big New Tax (which is going to destroy civilisation and swend the economy back to the stone age.)

Chop71 said :

Read between the lines…. NSW has to supply a grid all over the state. Large land areas with many regional populations. I’d say the cost of infastructure in the ACT per resident/land area would actually enforce is to have much cheaper electricity than NSW and other states.

Yes, because the electricity that ACTEW distributes is produced and supplied by,……..

Well, if we were allowed to produce our own, maybe prices could actually fall. Now that would be an ACT 1st.

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

“climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative”

You keep telling yourself that.

Any concept that uses computer modeled outcomes is speculative Jimbo. I can’t help it if you are a slow learner.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat that would otherwise leave the planetary system. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is trapping more heat, causing the planet to warm.

All of that is basic, observational science. Direct observations. Basic physics. Basic chemistry. No dependance on computer models needed.

Suggesting you can continue to increase emissions of greenhouse gases and not heat the planet requires overturning many lines of independent evidence & direct observation, as well as basic physics and chemistry. That’s quite an ask.

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

“climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative”

You keep telling yourself that.

Any concept that uses computer modeled outcomes is speculative Jimbo. I can’t help it if you are a slow learner.

You’re letting the word ‘speculative’ do a lot of work in that sentence, df.

Climate change by carbon pollution is about as speculative as the theory of evolution.

Jim Jones said :

“climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative”

You keep telling yourself that.

Any concept that uses computer modeled outcomes is speculative Jimbo. I can’t help it if you are a slow learner.

2604 said :

On the first point, I don’t think I said that it was. On the second, the fact that most people will receive compensation for the carbon tax nullifies any potential of the tax to modify those people’s behaviour. I reiterate that the idea that people will modify their behaviour so that they can keep more of the compensation payments makes no sense, and that the most likely scenario is that people who receive compensation will not modify their behaviour at all.

Say you were working and your employer provided a coffee machine. Then one day the employer said ‘no more coffee machine, in return I will pay everyone an additional $3 per day. You can use that to buy a coffee for $3.20 at the local cafe or you can bring in your own coffee or give up coffee, whatever’

You think that most people would just go to the cafe instead? I reckon a good proportion of people would bring in their own coffee, or buy their own small coffee machine or whatever – probably just like the APS, where some people haunt the cafe and others make their own.

So not everyone will change. But most people will. Plus you get your $700 compensation (or whatever you get) ‘in the background’ (tax cut, small pension increase, once a year payment) but your bills are up front and constant – people are far more receptive to the thought of losing money (using too much electricity) than gaining money (knowing that in some way they may be getting compensation)

I have no doubt the carbon tax will affect purchasing decisions. Which is the point of having the tax. It is economically clearly the best method to achieve the desired goal.

Whether you believe its an appropriate goal or not is a different argument.

“climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative”

You keep telling yourself that.

Pandy said :

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing

And of course no one will mention the elephant in room, population.

By all means let’s reduce emissions, let invest in renewable energy, let’s find a way to reduce coal / fossil based energy.

But let’s not kid ourselves that a tax on CO2 is going to make any difference.

Gaia demands a virus knock off the worlds population to 1920 levels: about 2 billion.

A virus with a quick death would be preferable to starvation or nuclear anhiliation but one way or another it has got to happen. No one wants to address over population least of all the UN who are now controlled by nations that have no idea what contraception is nor would their culture allow it anyhow. Over population is factual, climate change by “carbon pollution” is speculative. The only certainty (in Australia at least) is that electricity prices (and prices of all other items that have an energy input) are going to increase dramatically which will take our minds of the greater problem of dealing with overpopulation.

And of course no one will mention the elephant in room, population.

By all means let’s reduce emissions, let invest in renewable energy, let’s find a way to reduce coal / fossil based energy.

But let’s not kid ourselves that a tax on CO2 is going to make any difference.

Yep. Increasing numbers of people = more demand for energy. We in NSW have already had the joy of huge electricity increases, all to pay for more infrastructure, for increasing population. It’s a bit sad that the Greens studiously avoid criticising population growth, when too many people are the cause of everything the Greens are worried about.

HenryBG said :

The tax *I* pay doesn’t make one lick of difference to the government’s budget.

…because you pay zero income tax? Splitting hairs in this way doesn’t make your idea that the effect of income tax on GDP is the same as the effect of the carbon tax on CO2 emissions any more valid.

HenryBG said :

Hang on, are you saying that a measure which will reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of heat that the atmosphere can trap, will have no direct or measurable impact?

On climate change, yes. Given that average worldwide temperatures only increased by a cumulative total of 0.6 degrees in the 20th century, or an average of 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, I’m interested to hear how you think that a carbon tax imposed by a country which accounts for only 2% of global CO2 emissions will make a measurable impact on worldwide climate change while the likes of China and India keep on pumping it out like there’s no tomorrow.

HenryBG said :

You seem hugely confused.
1/ The primary purpose of the carbon tax isn’t to make people reduce their energy use.
2/ You seem to not understand/are in denial about the well-established principle behind using tax to modify behaviour.

On the first point, I don’t think I said that it was. On the second, the fact that most people will receive compensation for the carbon tax nullifies any potential of the tax to modify those people’s behaviour. I reiterate that the idea that people will modify their behaviour so that they can keep more of the compensation payments makes no sense, and that the most likely scenario is that people who receive compensation will not modify their behaviour at all.

HenryBG said :

So you *really* don’t understand our taxation system nor our welfare system at all, then?
I didn’t think you did.
You just live in your little rightwing bubble of ignorance and greed.

I understand them fine. I do think it’s a little rich to be hinting that you pay no income tax and then to lecture people about the glories of the welfare state and how income tax revenues should be spent. Like every other rusted-on leftie, you want “the rich” to pay for everything while receiving nothing in return, while you pay for nothing and expect all of your pet projects to be implemented using other people’s money.

HenryBG said :

I noticed you slipped into ad-hominem mode instead of explaining why rich people who earn over $80,000pa can’t afford the equivalent of two extra cups of coffee per week.

Your calling people all sorts of names (kooks, right-wing extremists, rightards, ignorant, greedy, Andrew Bolt, blah blah) but whinging about “ad hominem” attacks as soon as you get a taste of your own medicine would be funny if Jim J hadn’t been making that same joke for years already on this site. In any case, given that it is just the cost of two cups of coffee per week as you state, I don’t think it’s just the bus drivers, nurses, teachers, tradies, APS6-plus public servants and all us other stinking rich folks earning $80k-plus per year who should be asked to pay.

And there goes Julia on QandA, describing a “middle class family” as a bloke on $70,000 and his wife on $35,000. With a straight face.

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing

And of course no one will mention the elephant in room, population.

By all means let’s reduce emissions, let invest in renewable energy, let’s find a way to reduce coal / fossil based energy.

But let’s not kid ourselves that a tax on CO2 is going to make any difference.

Gaia demands a virus knock off the worlds population to 1920 levels: about 2 billion.

2604 said :

staringclown said :

That would be an awesome argument if this was a political discussion. It’s not. You’ve already agreed that climate change is a problem. Or do you now not believe that it isn’t a problem? Which is it?

You seem to infer that you have some belief in market forces being a good thing yet you condemn a market approach pricing CO2 (and presumably other pollutants which we already price). Your arguments are confused to say the least.

Actually, this is a political discussion – we’re discussing the merits of a political decision, the decision to implement the carbon tax. Stop trying to infer that anyone who has an issue with the carbon tax is a climate change skeptic. I think that climate change is occurring. But I don’t know if it’s a “problem” and certainly don’t think we’re in the middle of the climate emergency which Tim Flannery et al are constantly telling us we’re in. In any case, the salient point is that almost everyone has acknowledged that the carbon tax being implemented in Australia will do nothing to slow or prevent AGW. And yet it’s happening anyway. As Chewy says, it’s all about symbolism.

Also, when the government imposes a fixed price on carbon dioxide emissions it doesn’t constitute a “market-based approach” to pricing emissions. An ETS does that but we won’t get that for a while, yet.

I didn’t infer you were a skeptic – I asked if you were one. You say you think climate change is occurring and I agree with you.

I also agree that an ETS (cap and trade) would have been preferable as it provides an upper limit for emissions which can be lowered however this was scuppered by the Liberal party and subsequently the greens which is the only reason we ended up with a carbon tax.

Australia is among the highest emitters per capita of CO2 which is why it is important that we as a wealthy country must take the first steps toward solving the problem. There is a moral dimension here.

While there is uncertainty as to the degree of seriousness of the consequences the issue is one of risk management. A prudent course of action would be mitigate the effects. The evidence is getting stronger as time goes on not weaker.

The action is not just symbolism. It is designed to aid a transition to renewable energy. There is a 10 billion dollar fund specifically for this purpose. There will be opportunities for development and export of renewable technologies but not before a price on carbon is imposed.

It is wholly unremarkable that a cost on a pollutant is imposed. Once the true cost of emissions is factored into fossil fuels the renewable alternatives stack up a lot better. The acid rain program successfully targeted SO2 emissions using a cap and trade system and no one batted an eyelid.

2604 said :

When you don’t pay income tax it does make a direct and measurable difference to government revenues, which is why governments come down hard on tax evasion.

Rubbish.
The tax *I* pay doesn’t make one lick of difference to the government’s budget.

2604 said :

The proposed carbon tax, by contrast, will have no direct or measurable impact on climate change. It is a tokenistic drop in the ocean.

Hang on, are you saying that a measure which will reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of heat that the atmosphere can trap, will have no direct or measurable impact?
Would you care to try that assertion again, only without the mistakes?

2604 said :

Because of the harebrained idea that people who are being compensated will reduce their energy use more than they would in the absence of a carbon tax? Face it, anyone who is being shielded from the effect of the carbon tax will have no incentive to modify his or her behaviour at all.

You seem hugely confused.
1/ The primary purpose of the carbon tax isn’t to make people reduce their energy use.
2/ You seem to not understand/are in denial about the well-established principle behind using tax to modify behaviour.

2604 said :

And, what people can and can’t “afford” to pay is no business of the government.

So you *really* don’t understand our taxation system nor our welfare system at all, then?
I didn’t think you did.
You just live in your little rightwing bubble of ignorance and greed.

I noticed you slipped into ad-hominem mode instead of explaining why rich people who earn over $80,000pa can’t afford the equivalent of two extra cups of coffee per week.

pajs said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

Not that the tax-free threshold is changing, or there’s a compensation package, or anything…

Not for us there isn’t. Only if you earn under 80k (and you’d need to earn a LOT under 80k to get enough offset to pay for the extra cost of living) or have lots of young kids. Same with the mining tax JuLiar wants to implement – people earning a “massive” 80k or 160k combined won’t see a cent of it. More wealth redistribution from the socialist ALP/greens alliance.

That’s what we’ve just signed up to do. Will pay a set amount on the electric & gas fortnightly and then any balance at the time the bill arrives. No it won’t ultimately save us any money but it will definately work better for our budget. It won’t work for everyone, but for us on a single wage we find it easier to pay our bills in installments.

A lot of people seem to find electricity bills a huge problem because they are so big and lumpy but not many households would spend more than $10 a day on electricity. A lot seem to find $10 a day for discretionary stuff like buying lunch instead of taking it from home, driving and paying for parking instead of taking bus, riding bike, etc. Maybe power companies should promote ways of getting us to pay as we go – eg a daily direct debit instead of a big slug every couple of months. Or a prepay system where we use our credit card to pay for future power use and our remaining credit is shown on a display panel in our house. That would keep us focussed and give us a short term reward for being careful. At the moment there is too long a delay between extravagant use and eventual cost.

Bottom line is that most product prices include a charge for waste disposal or a charge to encourage waste minimisation – we should be thankful but a little guilty that our electricity has come cheaper than it should have been for so many years.

We will all find ways to reduce some discretionary power usage – shorter showers, outside drying of clothes washed before the last minute and less heating and cooling will save a lot more $$ than living in the dark – not that there’s anything wrong with that…………..

HenryBG said :

The tax *I* pay, as an individual, makes “not one lick of difference” to Australia’s GNP, GDP, etc…
And yet, when I try to pay no tax, the government is all over me like a rash.

Now, if you can figure out why that is, you just might be able to catch up with us on the carbon tax thing.

The purpose of levying income tax isn’t to reduce or diminish GNP or GDP, it is to pay for government services. Income tax has nothing to do with either of those measures. When you don’t pay income tax it does make a direct and measurable difference to government revenues, which is why governments come down hard on tax evasion.

The proposed carbon tax, by contrast, will have no direct or measurable impact on climate change. It is a tokenistic drop in the ocean.

HenryBG said :

Get an economist/accountant/somebody-who-passed-Year12 to explain to you the function, purpose, and economic effect of putting a price on an externalised cost.

I understand it fine, thanks. I don’t agree with neutralising the “function, purpose and economic effect” of that price by compensating people causing the externalised cost (in this case, pollution) over and above the level of that price. Why do you think that makes sense? Because of the harebrained idea that people who are being compensated will reduce their energy use more than they would in the absence of a carbon tax? Face it, anyone who is being shielded from the effect of the carbon tax will have no incentive to modify his or her behaviour at all.

HenryBG said :

So…what you’re saying is that the government has decided that people who are rich can afford an extra $10/week? Gosh! Reckon they’re wrong? That’s why *you* aren’t the Government, I guess.

No, what I’m saying is that the idea that the carbon tax is OK because we’re all magically getting a big tax break is wrong. The overcompensation and $10bn slush fund are ultimately being funded by carbon tax revenues from a minority of the population.

The idea that anyone earning above $80k per year is “rich” is certainly an intriguing one and certainly tells me something about your own achievements in the economic game of life. And, what people can and can’t “afford” to pay is no business of the government. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” was fine for Marx, but it has no place in Australia.

HenryBG said :

Let’s not beat around the bush here: the whole “climate change is crap” thing is insane retarded nonsense.

I agree. But criticism of climate change is a wholly different thing to criticism of the carbon tax, much as people like yourself intentionally or unintentionally conflate the two.

chewy14 said :

Why would hamstringing our economy for no tangible benefit be a good thing?

Why would a tax, that is a fraction as effective as the GST, “hamstring” anything?

Alarmist, much?

chewy14 said :

We have a few hundred years of coal reserves so give the ‘finite’ resource thing a rest.

Did you not view the stats I provided showing the course of energy prices?

The thing about a finite resource, is that if we *don’t* sell it for $n in 2000, we can sell it for $n x10, in 2010.
Basic market realities.
Energy prices are doubling almost every 4 years at the moment.
The idiots dead keen to dig it all up *now* and sell it all *now*, when it’s worth nothing, are clearly innumerate.

2604 said :

If it won’t make a lick of difference, as you seem to agree, then why undertake the whole carbon tax exercise?

I think it’s a very basic failure failure of the imagination afflicting these rightards…

The tax *I* pay, as an individual, makes “not one lick of difference” to Australia’s GNP, GDP, etc…
And yet, when I try to pay no tax, the government is all over me like a rash.

Now, if you can figure out why that is, you just might be able to catch up with us on the carbon tax thing.

2604 said :

… if people could avoid paying the carbon tax by reducing their consumption alone there would be no need for the compensation package, would there?

You *really* are having trouble understanding this, aren’t you?
Get an economist/accountant/somebody-who-passed-Year12 to explain to you the function, purpose, and economic effect of putting a price on an externalised cost.

2604 said :

As for the $1 extra per week, I feel obliged to reiterate for your sake and the sake of all others earning less than $80,000 per annum who haven’t looked beyond their own situation that people earning above $80,000 will receive no income tax benefits

So…what you’re saying is that the government has decided that people who are rich can afford an extra $10/week?

Gosh! Reckon they’re wrong? That’s why *you* aren’t the Government, I guess.

2604 said :

Out of curiosity, can left-wing people ever mount an argument without mentioning Andrew Bolt? Apart from anything else, using strawmen in this way telegraphs that there are no logic or facts to support your argument. Why not just post “I give up”?

In the UK, the carbon tax is being introduced by the Tories.

In Australia, kooks, loonies, and right-wing extremists adhering to the “climate change is crap” ideology have laid claim to the Liberal Party, and Tony Abbott is playing along.
He’s a moron.
So is Nick Minchin.
And so are Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, and the rest of them.

Every time somebody like you pops up with insane rubbish about climate change, we know you either get it from Andrew Bolt, or get it from the same people who gave it to Andrew Bolt.

Let’s not beat around the bush here: the whole “climate change is crap” thing is insane retarded nonsense.

Oh, and, “left-wing people”, moi? ROTFL!@@

staringclown said :

That would be an awesome argument if this was a political discussion. It’s not. You’ve already agreed that climate change is a problem. Or do you now not believe that it isn’t a problem? Which is it?

You seem to infer that you have some belief in market forces being a good thing yet you condemn a market approach pricing CO2 (and presumably other pollutants which we already price). Your arguments are confused to say the least.

Actually, this is a political discussion – we’re discussing the merits of a political decision, the decision to implement the carbon tax. Stop trying to infer that anyone who has an issue with the carbon tax is a climate change skeptic. I think that climate change is occurring. But I don’t know if it’s a “problem” and certainly don’t think we’re in the middle of the climate emergency which Tim Flannery et al are constantly telling us we’re in. In any case, the salient point is that almost everyone has acknowledged that the carbon tax being implemented in Australia will do nothing to slow or prevent AGW. And yet it’s happening anyway. As Chewy says, it’s all about symbolism.

Also, when the government imposes a fixed price on carbon dioxide emissions it doesn’t constitute a “market-based approach” to pricing emissions. An ETS does that but we won’t get that for a while, yet.

Watson said :

Watson said :

c_c said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

If you are a single income family you get Family Tax Benefit B (and probably A too) unless you are above the income threshold in which case you shouldn’t be whinging about $200 a year anyway. All FTB recipients would have gotten their one off carbon tax bonus from Centrelink by now, which more than compensates for the price rise.

If your family income is less than $123,000, you will actually receive $400 ‘Clean Energy Supplement’ and thus will be $200 ahead. Thanks Greens!
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/clean-energy-future#payments

Oh well then, if that’s the case all those families out there won’t have to change their usage at all. Carbon tax has had nil effect on anything. Except that like the GST, everyone hit with the tax will just pass it on down the line and everything will go up by xx%. Then we will all negotiate with our employers for an equivalent pay rise to compensate and the balance is restored.

welkin31 said :

I have been wondering how quick RiotACT pro AGW, pro IPCC, pro Carbon Tax people would be to notice the crash & burn of the much publicised Gergis et al 2012 paper – “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.
JoNova has the story in full –
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/
and of course you might learn something from Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit who broke the story.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
Dr David Karoly, a co-author has had to email SM and say.
[Dear Stephen,
I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study `Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results.]
They have apparently pulled the paper at the Journal until it can be tortured into shape again.
JN puts the cost at $300K – I think it is much more than that.

Doesn’t mean the planet isn’t getting warmer…

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html

welkin31 said :

I have been wondering how quick RiotACT pro AGW, pro IPCC, pro Carbon Tax people would be to notice the crash & burn of the much publicised Gergis et al 2012 paper – “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.
JoNova has the story in full –
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/
and of course you might learn something from Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit who broke the story.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
Dr David Karoly, a co-author has had to email SM and say.
[Dear Stephen,
I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study `Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results.]
They have apparently pulled the paper at the Journal until it can be tortured into shape again.
JN puts the cost at $300K – I think it is much more than that.

And I have been wondering how it would be before someone cited joanne nova as a credible source. The beauty of scientists is that they are held to account and correct their mistakes unlike joanne nova. You’ll have to do better than that.

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

And which people would that be; and what is “one lick”; or did you just think this would be a suitable time to derail the conversation with a King-Kong-sized strawman?

Why would reducing our consumption of the finite resource that is fossil fuels be, “a bad thing”?
A bad thing for BP shareholders? Is that what you mean?

All this panic, mass suicides, denial of reality, and death threats to scientists is all over….
about $1 per week of net extra cost, if you fail to reduce your energy consumption.

You can tell these numpties are rusted-on ideologues, Andrew Bolt fans immune to fact, logic or reason.
And overly-enamoured with pathetically transparent logical fallacies for argument.

If it won’t make a lick of difference, as you seem to agree, then why undertake the whole carbon tax exercise? To be seen to be doing something? To provide global leadership for China and India to follow (not to mention the tooth fairy)? If it will indeed make no difference then it is mindless green tokenism whose only concrete effects will be wealth redistribution and making trade-exposed Australian industries less competitive.

Reducing consumption is no bad thing but if people could avoid paying the carbon tax by reducing their consumption alone there would be no need for the compensation package, would there? Or do you think that only higher income earners should be expected to reduce their consumption? The idea that people can’t or won’t reduce their consumption without a carbon tax is specious and belies a lack of understanding of how businesses (and people generally) work.

As for the $1 extra per week, I feel obliged to reiterate for your sake and the sake of all others earning less than $80,000 per annum who haven’t looked beyond their own situation that people earning above $80,000 will receive no income tax benefits, and people without dependents will receive no FTA/B benefits. In other words, if you aren’t the target of an electoral bribe from Labor, the cost will be much greater.

Out of curiosity, can left-wing people ever mount an argument without mentioning Andrew Bolt? Apart from anything else, using strawmen in this way telegraphs that there are no logic or facts to support your argument. Why not just post “I give up”?

That would be an awesome argument if this was a political discussion. It’s not. You’ve already agreed that climate change is a problem. Or do you now not believe that it isn’t a problem? Which is it?

You seem to infer that you have some belief in market forces being a good thing yet you condemn a market approach pricing CO2 (and presumably other pollutants which we already price). Your arguments are confused to say the least.

welkin31 said :

I have been wondering how quick RiotACT pro AGW….

Actually, I am anti AGW, but I find denying its existence a poor way to get rid of it.

welkin31 said :

I have been wondering how quick RiotACT pro AGW, pro IPCC, pro Carbon Tax people would be to notice the crash & burn of the much publicised Gergis et al 2012 paper – “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.
JoNova has the story in full –
t.

Joanne Nova is in cahoots with the Citizens’ Electoral Council. They are loonies of the highest order.

Check out their website:
http://www.cecaust.com.au/

If you’re wondering who writes their material, check out the LaRouchians’ website:
http://larouchepac.com/

Complete nutters.

Now, back to Welkin’s characteristically dismal contribution:
(As Jim Jones would say)
“So, a scientist issues a correction to some results he produced, and this proves Climate Change is crap?”

Welkin – you are clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer – but by relying on crank websites for your information, you are making it far, far worse.

What you want is real information, by properly qualified people who neither have links to potty political extremists nor are taking funding from professional energy industry disinformation think-tanks, and here it is:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx

Read it and stop regurgitating crap from crank websites.

I have been wondering how quick RiotACT pro AGW, pro IPCC, pro Carbon Tax people would be to notice the crash & burn of the much publicised Gergis et al 2012 paper – “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.
JoNova has the story in full –
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/
and of course you might learn something from Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit who broke the story.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
Dr David Karoly, a co-author has had to email SM and say.
[Dear Stephen,
I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study `Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results.]
They have apparently pulled the paper at the Journal until it can be tortured into shape again.
JN puts the cost at $300K – I think it is much more than that.

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

So, does that mean you are switching off lights & appliances 17% more of the time?

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

And which people would that be; and what is “one lick”; or did you just think this would be a suitable time to derail the conversation with a King-Kong-sized strawman?

Why would reducing our consumption of the finite resource that is fossil fuels be, “a bad thing”?
A bad thing for BP shareholders? Is that what you mean?

All this panic, mass suicides, denial of reality, and death threats to scientists is all over….
about $1 per week of net extra cost, if you fail to reduce your energy consumption.

You can tell these numpties are rusted-on ideologues, Andrew Bolt fans immune to fact, logic or reason.
And overly-enamoured with pathetically transparent logical fallacies for argument.

If it won’t make a lick of difference, as you seem to agree, then why undertake the whole carbon tax exercise? To be seen to be doing something? To provide global leadership for China and India to follow (not to mention the tooth fairy)? If it will indeed make no difference then it is mindless green tokenism whose only concrete effects will be wealth redistribution and making trade-exposed Australian industries less competitive.

Reducing consumption is no bad thing but if people could avoid paying the carbon tax by reducing their consumption alone there would be no need for the compensation package, would there? Or do you think that only higher income earners should be expected to reduce their consumption? The idea that people can’t or won’t reduce their consumption without a carbon tax is specious and belies a lack of understanding of how businesses (and people generally) work.

As for the $1 extra per week, I feel obliged to reiterate for your sake and the sake of all others earning less than $80,000 per annum who haven’t looked beyond their own situation that people earning above $80,000 will receive no income tax benefits, and people without dependents will receive no FTA/B benefits. In other words, if you aren’t the target of an electoral bribe from Labor, the cost will be much greater.

Out of curiosity, can left-wing people ever mount an argument without mentioning Andrew Bolt? Apart from anything else, using strawmen in this way telegraphs that there are no logic or facts to support your argument. Why not just post “I give up”?

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

And which people would that be; and what is “one lick”; or did you just think this would be a suitable time to derail the conversation with a King-Kong-sized strawman?

Why would reducing our consumption of the finite resource that is fossil fuels be, “a bad thing”?
A bad thing for BP shareholders? Is that what you mean?

All this panic, mass suicides, denial of reality, and death threats to scientists is all over….
about $1 per week of net extra cost, if you fail to reduce your energy consumption.

You can tell these numpties are rusted-on ideologues, Andrew Bolt fans immune to fact, logic or reason.
And overly-enamoured with pathetically transparent logical fallacies for argument.

Haha. Yeah Henry we know, everyone who disagrees with you is an Alan Jones/Andrew Bolt fan. Talk about logical fallacies.

Why would hamstringing our economy for no tangible benefit be a good thing?

We have a few hundred years of coal reserves so give the ‘finite’ resource thing a rest. we don’t need to change to renewables tomorrow so what is the point in doing something when China and India’s yearly emissions growth exceeds our total emissions?

Or are you like the Greens and a big fan of symbolism?

For those getting excited about whatever Alan Jones is whispering in their ear this afternoon, it might be worth taking a deep breath and checking what energy prices are doing, independently of any Carbon price:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key_world_energy_stats-1.pdf
[Pages 40 & 41]

As you can see, other pressures affecting global energy prices are well over 1 order of magnitude greater than the effect of a carbon price.

dungfungus said :

So, that’s the price increase in electricity taken car of. Where is the “compensation” coming from for the price increases in everything else then?

I believe they have promised to get rid of Stamp Duty to compensate us for the Big New Tax (which is going to destroy civilisation and swend the economy back to the stone age.)

Chop71 said :

Read between the lines…. NSW has to supply a grid all over the state. Large land areas with many regional populations. I’d say the cost of infastructure in the ACT per resident/land area would actually enforce is to have much cheaper electricity than NSW and other states.

Yes, because the electricity that ACTEW distributes is produced and supplied by,……..

chewy14 said :

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

And which people would that be; and what is “one lick”; or did you just think this would be a suitable time to derail the conversation with a King-Kong-sized strawman?

Why would reducing our consumption of the finite resource that is fossil fuels be, “a bad thing”?
A bad thing for BP shareholders? Is that what you mean?

All this panic, mass suicides, denial of reality, and death threats to scientists is all over….
about $1 per week of net extra cost, if you fail to reduce your energy consumption.

You can tell these numpties are rusted-on ideologues, Andrew Bolt fans immune to fact, logic or reason.
And overly-enamoured with pathetically transparent logical fallacies for argument.

chewy14 said :

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Wow, you must be a very easy customer to please.

If any essential product goes up massively in price, its not the retailers fault that you’re paying more its your own.

Of course the price rise is the retailer’s responsibility, I’m just adult enough to control my own consumption. I won’t rage masturbate myself to an early grave because I have to consume slightly less.

The claims of suicides and deaths for using 17% less energy than 2012 levels are plain hysteria. Average Australian households use 140% more energy than they did in 1990 – hardly a caveman era.

Basically, the situation is we’re being offered a choice:

– use 2003-levels of electricity (and suffer falls in the dark, bbqs for heat, death from no heating and other extremist reactions) and receive hundreds of dollars, OR
– use the same amount and have a minor +ve or -ve price impact, dependent on your situation.

There are problems in society that warrant the vitriol in this forum, but this is an absolute teacup monsoon.

Ultimately, anyone who’s arguing that the current use of the net planet’s resources can continue can only be arguing without information.

chewy14 said :

Jethro said :

Diggety said :

Carbon tax supporters are a bit of a temporary brain fart within our society, but a minority of Australians being this delusional on policy is nothing new.

The Carbon Tax is far from a perfect way to deal with our emissions.

But those who see it as at least being a step in the right direction to reducing our carbon emissions are less delusional than those who continue to bleat that AGW is a fraud perpetrated by a cabal of all the world’s major scientific institutions working in cahoots with one-world-government environmentalist groups.

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing

Worse for whom? Future generations or you?

You agree climate change is a problem. And your alternative solution to reducing atmospheric CO2 is to do nothing? And you’re labelling those that want to provide leadership on the issue as delusional. Got it.

Since when has following what the rest of the world does been a good idea?

chewy14 said :

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Wow, you must be a very easy customer to please.

If any essential product goes up massively in price, its not the retailers fault that you’re paying more its your own.

Of course the price rise is the retailer’s responsibility, I’m just adult enough to control my own consumption. I won’t rage masturbate myself to an early grave because I have to consume slightly less.

Furthermore, the claims of suicides and deaths for using 17% less energy than 2012 levels are plain hysteria. Average Australian households use 140% more energy than they did in 1990 – hardly a caveman era.

Anyone who’s arguing that the current use of the net planet’s resources can continue can only be arguing without information.

chewy14 said :

Jethro said :

Diggety said :

Carbon tax supporters are a bit of a temporary brain fart within our society, but a minority of Australians being this delusional on policy is nothing new.

The Carbon Tax is far from a perfect way to deal with our emissions.

But those who see it as at least being a step in the right direction to reducing our carbon emissions are less delusional than those who continue to bleat that AGW is a fraud perpetrated by a cabal of all the world’s major scientific institutions working in cahoots with one-world-government environmentalist groups.

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks Australia pricing carbon is going to stop climate change.

But at some stage or another, every country is going to have to shift away from their reliance on fossil fuels. It is cheaper and easier to start now than further down the track when the changes will have to be more rapid and severe. Even if you don’t believe in AGW, peak oil is either already here, or just around the corner. The prices we pay for fossil fuels are only going to go up, and in some cases, quite dramatically.

It makes sense to put systems in place to encourage investment in green energy technologies, because it is these technologies that will be the big growth sectors in the future.

Jethro said :

Diggety said :

Carbon tax supporters are a bit of a temporary brain fart within our society, but a minority of Australians being this delusional on policy is nothing new.

The Carbon Tax is far from a perfect way to deal with our emissions.

But those who see it as at least being a step in the right direction to reducing our carbon emissions are less delusional than those who continue to bleat that AGW is a fraud perpetrated by a cabal of all the world’s major scientific institutions working in cahoots with one-world-government environmentalist groups.

Yeah but the people who think the Carbon tax will make one lick of difference to climate change are.the most delusional of all.
Without a global agreement its worse than doing nothing.

I don’t blame the government, I blame the do-good minority who are using this global warming [speaking of which, why isn’t it getting warmer?]

It is getting warmer.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists.gif

It climate not weather. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I-filed said :

As well as complaining here, write to Greg Combet and ask him for a detailed answer as to why e.g. forecast of $8.00 carbon tax impost on someone earning $80,000, (with zero compensation) has now officially turned into $5 a week in electricity price rises alone – and could he please account for how the other $3.00 is going to spread across all other expenditure, given that the $8.00 is his official forecast? And, if he needs to revise it, will he please guarantee compensation for all impost over the $8.00, and if not why not?

Good luck with that one!

Watson said :

c_c said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

If you are a single income family you get Family Tax Benefit B (and probably A too) unless you are above the income threshold in which case you shouldn’t be whinging about $200 a year anyway. All FTB recipients would have gotten their one off carbon tax bonus from Centrelink by now, which more than compensates for the price rise.

If your family income is less than $123,000, you will actually receive $400 ‘Clean Energy Supplement’ and thus will be $200 ahead. Thanks Greens!
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/clean-energy-future#payments

c_c said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

If you are a single income family you get Family Tax Benefit B (and probably A too) unless you are above the income threshold in which case you shouldn’t be whinging about $200 a year anyway. All FTB recipients would have gotten their one off carbon tax bonus from Centrelink by now, which more than compensates for the price rise.

I read somewhere that the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics” are looking for members for a political party in Canberra.

c_c said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

A lot of the people bleating about being worse off could actually be a lot better of if they reduced the booze intake and cut out the ciggies.

What if these people already don’t drink or smoke? What if the only thing they have left to cut back on is their transport, heating costs or more importantly their rent, mortgage or food?It isn’t like the government is whacking a price hike on something people can choose to not buy, it is a tax on an essential service that we NEED to pay.
I bet if there was a $200/year increase for cycling, bus fares, or any other green initiative, there’d be a different bred of people complaining on here.

Diggety said :

Carbon tax supporters are a bit of a temporary brain fart within our society, but a minority of Australians being this delusional on policy is nothing new.

The Carbon Tax is far from a perfect way to deal with our emissions.

But those who see it as at least being a step in the right direction to reducing our carbon emissions are less delusional than those who continue to bleat that AGW is a fraud perpetrated by a cabal of all the world’s major scientific institutions working in cahoots with one-world-government environmentalist groups.

Carbon tax supporters are a bit of a temporary brain fart within our society, but a minority of Australians being this delusional on policy is nothing new.

(I also love this fantasy world where a $10 bag of heat beads is more cost effective than running a 2.4kW space heater that costs about 50c an hour.)

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

A lot of the people bleating about being worse off could actually be a lot better of if they reduced the booze intake and cut out the ciggies.

Erm,

Who are you, Hugh Grant?

didn’t you see this on the TV news a few weeks back, the family in the western suburbs of Sydney who brought the BBQ inside

There’s the difference between you and me. We both see individuals behaving foolishly occasionally, but only you like to bleat that it’s all THE GOVERNMENT’s fault, and only you are dense enough to extrapolate an imminent Heat Bead-driven massacre from a single example.

Roundhead89 said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

JuLIAR broke my leg herp derp

And just days after I crashed my car and killed a bunch of white women and children because a Labor / Greens speed camera made me take my eyes off the road!

Blame yourself the next time you hear about a family poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide fumes after bringing the BBQ inside because they can’t afford electricity.

*slow clap*

You were joking, right?

Erm, didn’t you see this on the TV news a few weeks back, the family in the western suburbs of Sydney who brought the BBQ inside because they couldn’t afford to run the heater, and their son calling 000 when the parents collapsed due to the fumes and had to be revived in hospital? Oh, I forgot, people like you only watch the ABC.

It’s true, discerning individuals who want to be properly informed record ACA and TT, and line their kitty trays with Andrew Bolt.

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Don’t know about anyone else but i just received a carbon tax compensation payment which has effectively nullified the electricity price rise!

How do you know it was a Carbon Tax compensation payment? Did it say so? There are several “bribes” in the pipeline at the moment including the Household Assistance Package which is to “help with the high cost of living” which is strange because according to our treasurer evrything is tiketty-boo.

Yeah i tend to be suspicious of government propaganda as a general rule. On this occasion they said it would help me prepare for the introduction of the carbon price so ok i’ll take it at face value.The only certain thing is that i received the money and i’m gonna spend it!!

As well as complaining here, write to Greg Combet and ask him for a detailed answer as to why e.g. forecast of $8.00 carbon tax impost on someone earning $80,000, (with zero compensation) has now officially turned into $5 a week in electricity price rises alone – and could he please account for how the other $3.00 is going to spread across all other expenditure, given that the $8.00 is his official forecast? And, if he needs to revise it, will he please guarantee compensation for all impost over the $8.00, and if not why not?

Jono said :

Pandy said :

Hey but Julia has said prices will only go up 1%!!!!!!

Fracking liar.

Source? I don’t remember her saying that, but I’m happy to be shown where she did. I’ve seen her talk about Treasury forecasts of 10%, but not 1%.

The amount attributed to carbon tax in the electricty price increase is only 1.25%; (14.42 x 1.25 = 17.75)

bundah said :

Don’t know about anyone else but i just received a carbon tax compensation payment which has effectively nullified the electricity price rise!

How do you know it was a Carbon Tax compensation payment? Did it say so? There are several “bribes” in the pipeline at the moment including the Household Assistance Package which is to “help with the high cost of living” which is strange because according to our treasurer evrything is tiketty-boo.

Pandy said :

Hey but Julia has said prices will only go up 1%!!!!!!

Fracking liar.

Source? I don’t remember her saying that, but I’m happy to be shown where she did. I’ve seen her talk about Treasury forecasts of 10%, but not 1%.

bundah said :

Don’t know about anyone else but i just received a carbon tax compensation payment which has effectively nullified the electricity price rise!

So, that’s the price increase in electricity taken car of. Where is the “compensation” coming from for the price increases in everything else then?

Don’t know about anyone else but i just received a carbon tax compensation payment which has effectively nullified the electricity price rise!

Hey but Julia has said prices will only go up 1%!!!!!!

Fracking liar.

Roundhead89 said :

It just goes to show that Canberra is truly the home of the rusted-on true believers who will still vote Labor no matter how incompetent and corrupt they might get.

Only because the alternative’s far worse.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

JuLIAR broke my leg herp derp

And just days after I crashed my car and killed a bunch of white women and children because a Labor / Greens speed camera made me take my eyes off the road!

Blame yourself the next time you hear about a family poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide fumes after bringing the BBQ inside because they can’t afford electricity.

*slow clap*

You were joking, right?

Erm, didn’t you see this on the TV news a few weeks back, the family in the western suburbs of Sydney who brought the BBQ inside because they couldn’t afford to run the heater, and their son calling 000 when the parents collapsed due to the fumes and had to be revived in hospital? Oh, I forgot, people like you only watch the ABC.

I can’t believe there are still people trying to defend the carbon tax and this rotten government. It just goes to show that Canberra is truly the home of the rusted-on true believers who will still vote Labor no matter how incompetent and corrupt they might get.

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Wow, you must be a very easy customer to please.

If any essential product goes up massively in price, its not the retailers fault that you’re paying more its your own.

“nerp, derp, abuse, name calling…”

The blog equivalent of the little schoolyard bully who pokes his chest out and says ‘Oh yeah?’ when he’s got nothing to say.

schmeah said :

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

+1 .. Blaming Gov policy is just Gen X/Y’s way out of taking responsibility, as per.

Consider your energy consumption first.

Has been considered – Just ask me how many times we’ve told the kids to turn off the lights in their bedrooms, the toilet, the bathroom and the hallway! No, I will NOT turn off my computer every time I finish with it, because it takes 5 minutes to load up thanks to the wonders of Windows. Also, I will not turn off the TV etc. for the same reason, plus the hassle of getting in behind the entertainment cupboard to unplug it all. These measures are just a tiny, tiny little blip on the quarterly power bill in relation to the essentials – hot water and heating/cooling. Would you like to take an unheated shower on a -5 degree morning, or wear 3 layers of clothes to bed just to save a few hundred dollars? We are not that desperate yet. Thanks to the asthmatic extreme-winter outdoor enthusiasts we can’t have a nice warm fireplace to heat the house and our water, so we are forced to use what the government monopolizes. I don’t blame the government, I blame the do-good minority who are using this global warming [speaking of which, why isn’t it getting warmer?] as a tool to make more money out of everyone through taxes. Solar power would have been installed to help but not everyone has a spare $3000-$10,000 just lying around to help the environment.
Done all we can, next step is to figure how I will cool my homemade fusion reactor.

“Erm, hang on. the final straw for many household budgets.

Is he suggesting mass bankruptcies from this? Suicides?”

Hazard at a guess: he is suggesting it may be the final straw for some household budgets.

How did you imagine- or even suggest- mass suicides?

JuLIAR broke my leg herp derp

And just days after I crashed my car and killed a bunch of white women and children because a Labor / Greens speed camera made me take my eyes off the road!

Blame yourself the next time you hear about a family poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide fumes after bringing the BBQ inside because they can’t afford electricity.

*slow clap*

You were joking, right?

SnapperJack said :

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Blame yourself the next time you hear about a family poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide fumes after bringing the BBQ inside because they can’t afford electricity. And blame yourself the next time you hear of pensioners dying in house fires after trying to use long abandoned kerosene heaters to stay warm. But I suppose you don’t care about that.

Just keep believing in this utopian fantasy of a “clean energy future” while sipping your latte and to hell with people in the real world who will have to pay more and more and have to wait more than a year before they can get revenge on Labor and The Greens for creating this cruel and selfish injustice.

Ha – that’s hilarious.

Do more!!!

Please Julia, it’s time to go, you are the weakest link, Goodbye!

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

+1 .. Blaming Gov policy is just Gen X/Y’s way out of taking responsibility, as per.

Consider your energy consumption first.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

Not that the tax-free threshold is changing, or there’s a compensation package, or anything…

Lovely, our 3 kids single income family will be $200 per year worse off. Thanks a lot Greenies.

Chop71 said :

Read between the lines…. NSW has to supply a grid all over the state. Large land areas with many regional populations. I’d say the cost of infastructure in the ACT per resident/land area would actually enforce is to have much cheaper electricity than NSW and other states.

Correct.

I think people have been pretty good in conserving our resources (reduction in water usage in the ACT, if I do say so, is something to be proud of).
I think people in general have been taking positive steps in reducing their electricity consumption.I just hope things dont go to an extreme.
I agree that electricty companies are working hand in hand with governments in order to continue to maximise profits.

People would feel a bit better about the increases in prices if there was a reasonable level of accountability on how the extra moeny was being spent – to save our environment from the imminent peril we and our children face…

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Blame yourself the next time you hear about a family poisoning themselves with carbon monoxide fumes after bringing the BBQ inside because they can’t afford electricity. And blame yourself the next time you hear of pensioners dying in house fires after trying to use long abandoned kerosene heaters to stay warm. But I suppose you don’t care about that.

Just keep believing in this utopian fantasy of a “clean energy future” while sipping your latte and to hell with people in the real world who will have to pay more and more and have to wait more than a year before they can get revenge on Labor and The Greens for creating this cruel and selfish injustice.

dtc said :

If you are on a combined $130k with two kids, you get about $600 ‘back’ in assistance from the govt. So that will cover your electricity bill (although you are still about $100 ‘short’ due to the other pricing impacts).

https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/

I filled that out. No to all the questions, $65k to the income one.
No direct assistance, of course. And they claim that of the $369 extra I’ll pay in power bills, I’ll get $303 back via tax cuts.

Feeling skeptical.

And I suspect that a lot of people currently lulled into complacency at all the government spruiking of assistance to cushion the tax are in for a very nasty surprise.

If you are on a combined $130k with two kids, you get about $600 ‘back’ in assistance from the govt. So that will cover your electricity bill (although you are still about $100 ‘short’ due to the other pricing impacts).

https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/

dungfungus said :

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Blame youself also when you trip over something and break your leg because you had turned the light off. If you start to get a mindset like this you may as well go and live in a cave.

JuLIAR broke my leg herp derp

If you want to save money you can stop commenting on the net or it’s a bit hypocritical.

Has anyone calculated how much Australia’s reduction will reduce global temperatures by in 2050?

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Blame youself also when you trip over something and break your leg because you had turned the light off. If you start to get a mindset like this you may as well go and live in a cave.

Endrey said :

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.

Biggest energy consumers in the home are water heating, clothes washing and cooking. Home heating is also very high, though seasonal.

State wide, all those extra light bulbs, and phantom power drawers might add up, but for individual consumers, try telling them to turn the biggest and at the same time, most energy users off.

Read between the lines…. NSW has to supply a grid all over the state. Large land areas with many regional populations. I’d say the cost of infastructure in the ACT per resident/land area would actually enforce is to have much cheaper electricity than NSW and other states.

So that makes me ask. Why shouldn’t I have cheaper electricity?

I more than likely won’t get a responce, just a bill that was 17% more than last year.
Thanks ActewAGL, Actew’s major shareholder (ACT government), the pricing regulator and Julia

ACTEW are right. NSW has enjoyed some really spectacular electricity price rises over the last 2 years. This was to pay for building new infrastructure, for rising demand and population growth (there’s that weird thing again, I thought population growth brought all manner of good things?).

Many NSW people had the edifying experience of trimming back their power usage when warned that prices were going up, only to view their next power bill, which showed that they’d used much less power than ever before, but their bill was still higher than ever before.

I’m not going to blame Julia if my electricity bills end up being 17% higher, I’m going to blame myself for being too stupid to switch of lights, appliances etc.