Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By I-filed - 5 May 2012 150

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

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

Here’s the regulator’s punishment list.

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

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
150 Responses to
Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
2604 11:01 pm 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

Translation: “Why aren’t you gullible enough to change your opinion based upon a single, five-year period of exceptionally hot weather, and to believe that this constitutes an “accelerating trend” that will result in average global temperatures increasing by an average of 0.25 degrees Celsius per year over the next quarter century despite those temperatures having only increased at average rates of between 0.006 and 0.035 degrees per year over the past 100 years?”

HenryBG said :

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

But given the link between human activity and global warming, which is obviously a sacrosanct concept, this sudden increase (like global warming generally) must have been caused by human activity. So tell me, what did human beings do between 2000-2005 or the immediately preceding years that they hadn’t been doing since at least the early 1950s? And why was the increase so sudden? Were 600% more cars on the road all of a sudden?

HenryBG said :

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

Laughable: not a scientific measurement. 0.006 degrees per year (one degree every ~166 years): definitely a scientific measurement.

HenryBG said :

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

Oh I can see the increase. I just don’t agree that a single five-year period constitutes a trend. It certainly isn’t a sound basis for concluding that a permanent and life-threatening warming trend is underway.

HenryBG said :

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

The data seem pretty straightforward to me. What expert opinions have you drawn upon?

HenryBG said :

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

Speaking of using sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis – remind me again which tax cuts will be available for people earning $80,000-plus as compensation for the carbon tax, given your analysis that the on-costs of the carbon tax would be “offset by lower taxes on all of us”?

gazket 10:41 pm 09 May 12

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

HenryBG 9:38 pm 09 May 12

chewy14 said :

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

Oh, I will! It would just be nice if the people who aren’t loons would stop encouraging the people who are loons. They don’t really help your argument much, for starters, let alone contribute to adult discussion.

I’d like to potentially apologise in return to you for getting it wrong about Tim Flannery’s salary – according to this:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F5957d555-d5af-406a-9d73-21b790a8d86d%2F0004%22
he has been put on the equivalent to an SES Band3, pro rata’d down to 3 days per week.

As I understand it, SES3 should cover 230-280K. Pro rata’ing that down gives a max of 168K. So it doesn’t seem to add up either way you look at it. I suspect the “he’s SES band 3” is more likely to be wrong than the “he’s on $180k/year”. Normally, it’s a safe bet that whatever you read in The Australian is wrong, but perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where they got it right.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I can take it round the long way. Is Mr Flannery still being paid, what, $180,000 for an average of two days work a week? Is that still the case?

Mr Comley : On the question of the remuneration of Professor Flannery, nothing has changed from the previous evidence we have provided, which is that Professor Flannery is paid equivalent to a deputy secretary position on a pro rata basis, which is expected to be around three days per week.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What does that mean in actual figures? What does a deputy secretary get?

Mr Comley : There is a range, but in terms of the figure you have quoted, that number of around $180,000 a year is correct.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That has changed, though, since we last spoke about it?

Mr Comley : No. I am saying there has been no change in the remuneration arrangements of Professor Flannery since we last discussed this at estimates.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That equates to three-fifths of a relevant deputy secretary’s salary.

HenryBG 9:15 pm 09 May 12

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

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

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

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

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

There are 5 problems with your response.

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

2604 8:09 pm 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

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

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

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

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

chewy14 4:53 pm 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

And you’re making a serious logical fallacy by suggesting that my arguments are wrong because some people who agree with them have posted other incorrect material.

Anyway, you’re obviously not going to accept that there is legitimate debate here, so have fun beating up on the climate sceptics. I’m sure you’ll enjoy yourself.

HenryBG 4:32 pm 09 May 12

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

HenryBG 4:28 pm 09 May 12

Chewy exposes his wrongness, again:

I-filed said :

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

I’m tempted to ask, “Is that true, or did you read it in the Australian?”. but that would be cheating, because I already know that it is what was reported in the Australian and I already know that it is also untrue.

Flannery is paid $180k *pro rata*. Obviously the concept of *pro rata* is beyond your average mathematically-challenged denialist, but perhaps if you put just a little effort in, you might end up better informed than The Australian was planning on you being.

grump 11:59 am 09 May 12

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

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

No they haven’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

+1

chewy14 11:46 am 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

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

No they haven’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

HenryBG 12:01 am 09 May 12

chewy14 said :

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

No they haven’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HenryBG 10:26 pm 08 May 12

2604 said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2604 9:39 pm 08 May 12

pajs said :

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

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

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

chewy14 8:35 pm 08 May 12

HenryBG said :

Roundhead89 said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

gazket 8:25 pm 08 May 12

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

I-filed 8:09 pm 08 May 12

HenryBG said :

I-filed said :

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

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

$180,000pa is $86.50/hour.

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

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

HenryBG 7:40 pm 08 May 12

Roundhead89 said :

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

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

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

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

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

nobody 6:09 pm 08 May 12

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

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

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

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

Jim Jones 4:39 pm 08 May 12

pajs said :

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

+ however many scientists there are in the world.

pajs 4:13 pm 08 May 12

Roundhead89 said :

HenryBG said :

Thumper said :

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

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site