No Carbon Tax Rally

dr phil 19 March 2011 50

This is going to be BIG!

http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/no_carbon_tax_rally.html

Date
Wednesday 23rd March 2011

Where
On the Lawn Area Out the Front of Parliament House
Capital Hill side.

All you have to do is look on how many bus loads of people are comming from all over Australia. Lets spread the word


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
50 Responses to No Carbon Tax Rally
Filter
Order
shadow boxer shadow boxer 3:14 pm 21 Mar 11
Bosworth Bosworth 3:03 pm 21 Mar 11

welkin31 said :

Can I please ask – if put into L.A.W. law – how much will Garnaut’s proposals reduce global temperature ?

0.58 degrees celcius

EvanJames EvanJames 2:49 pm 21 Mar 11

I like, in a wider sense, Garnaut’s suggestion that low and middle income earners have significant tax cuts, and I’d go further and match that with less middle class welfare handouts. The sheer costs of collecting the tax and then re-allocating it are considerable. Remove the tax burden, and remove the silly handouts as well.

And since handouts to the childed cut out at $150k, I figure that must be the upper limits of what the government considers “middle income”.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 2:09 pm 21 Mar 11

Pommy bastard said :

Oh PB, stop digging an even bigger hole for yourself. You’ve made yourself look like a fool by believing – and quoting – green extremists and your red face could light up a room without the need for expensive and unreliable solar and wind power.

I’ve quoted people I agree, though I hardly think the BBC and the Maplecroft Consultancy count as extremists, whereas you have quoted no one. I’m pretty sure that providing verifiable evidence always trumps personal attack and insult, in debate.

Damn sure in fact.

It also trumps putting words in people’s mouths too, (or as we Poms call it “lying”.)

It’s also rather apparent that Krash hasn’t read the report he links to which he found on Wikipedia, as it shows my assertions to be true, and his false.

Again, I stand unchallenged on this matter.

Even though it breaks my New Years Resolution, I have to agree with PB here. Where is the evidence to refute him?

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 2:03 pm 21 Mar 11

Waiting For Godot said :

rebcart said :

“This is going to be big”

Is that ‘big’ in the same way Melbourne last week was big, where you guys had 200 protesters and the pro-carbon-tax counter-protest had 8000?

Bussing people in from other locations for events is a time-honoured tactic of Scientologists, to make people think there are a lot more local members than there really are for PR purposes. I wonder…

I, too, will be looking out for the counter-protests.

I knew that in the city of the Volvo socialists, latte left and Green Canberra Times/ABC true believers we would get a response like this.

The reason GetUp! was able to get 8000 people to their rally in Melbourne is simple. They were the usual suspects, the rent-a-crowd professional protesters who can be mobilised by email, phone trees and the lefty grapevine to be on the streets within minutes to stage protests at the drop of a hat. We can safely dismiss their views as being an unrepresentative fringe element not to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, the people attending the No Carbon Tax Rally are ordinary,conservative mainstream family people – the silent majority – who do not usually protest. As Andrew Bolt said during the week, their views are worth three times the views of the leftist, rent-a-crowd professional protesters.

I’m sure GetUp! will be able to muster many thousands for a counter rally. In fact I’d be surprised if they cant. They’ve already sent out several panic-stricken emails concerned that they are losing the argument and calling for donations and attendees at their rallies supporting the carbon tax.

Just remember, every opinion poll taken so far indicates that the No Carbon Tax Rally is supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians.

Well if Andrew Bolt said it….

shadow boxer shadow boxer 1:16 pm 21 Mar 11

Garnaut said; Of the funds raised (about $11 billion) half should go on tax cuts to middle and lower income earners and to increases in welfare payments

Hmmm that seems fair, $6bn dollars in direct tax increases not to be returned and tax cuts that are removed at 60-70k a year. Probably fair to say the average Canberra family will be taking this one on the chin. I can see why they wouldn’t want to take it to an election.

smpc smpc 1:02 pm 21 Mar 11

welkin31 said :

Can I please ask – if put into L.A.W. law – how much will Garnaut’s proposals reduce global temperature ?

Not at all, because you can’t just pass a law to suck the carbon that’s already there out of the atmosphere. What global action to reduce emissions might do is slow down or stop accelerated increases due to human activity.

I can’t wait for the ‘people’s revolt’ on Wednesday. I predict epic lulz.

welkin31 welkin31 12:45 pm 21 Mar 11

Bosworth said: [Garnaut’s latest report has been published, updating his thoughts on emissions trading.
The main features of his proposals are:
•An initial fixed price on carbon pollution of $20 to $30 per tonne
•An escalation factor of 4% each year
•Introduction of a trading scheme in 2015
•Establishment of an independent regulatory authority like the Reserve Bank to oversee the scheme and decide future compensation to industry
•The most trade-exposed industries would receive 90% free permits initially, with 60% for a second tier of industries. Assistance should be withdrawn once harmonised global pricing is in place
•Of the funds raised (about $11 billion) half should go on tax cuts to middle and lower income earners and to increases in welfare payments
•27-28% of the revenue should go to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries
•About 15% of the revenue should be used for carbon farming to create the equivalent of a new wool industry for the rural sector in carbon offsets
•There could be a one-off increase of about five to seven cents a litre of petrol, perhaps moderated initially by a one-off reduction in petrol excise
•$2-3 billion should be spent on short- to medium-term support for innovation in low-emissions technologies, to address market failures and lower the costs of transition to a low-emissions economy]

Can I please ask – if put into L.A.W. law – how much will Garnaut’s proposals reduce global temperature ?

Erg0 Erg0 12:13 pm 21 Mar 11

Pommy bastard said :

It’s also rather apparent that Krash hasn’t read the report he links to which he found on Wikipedia, as it shows my assertions to be true, and his false.

Without taking a side in the overall argument, his links show exactly what he says they do. The key point is that Australia has the highest per capita emissions among the top 20 total emitters. When countries outside the top 20 are included, we fall down the list.

Of course, this is almost entirely a semantic point, since the countries above us are such world powers as Luxembourg and the Netherlands Antilles, but it does show that the “number one per capita” stat that’s bandied about so freely requires a further qualification.

Bosworth Bosworth 11:35 am 21 Mar 11

Garnaut’s latest report has been published, updating his thoughts on emissions trading.

The main features of his proposals are:

•An initial fixed price on carbon pollution of $20 to $30 per tonne
•An escalation factor of 4% each year
•Introduction of a trading scheme in 2015
•Establishment of an independent regulatory authority like the Reserve Bank to oversee the scheme and decide future compensation to industry
•The most trade-exposed industries would receive 90% free permits initially, with 60% for a second tier of industries. Assistance should be withdrawn once harmonised global pricing is in place
•Of the funds raised (about $11 billion) half should go on tax cuts to middle and lower income earners and to increases in welfare payments
•27-28% of the revenue should go to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries
•About 15% of the revenue should be used for carbon farming to create the equivalent of a new wool industry for the rural sector in carbon offsets
•There could be a one-off increase of about five to seven cents a litre of petrol, perhaps moderated initially by a one-off reduction in petrol excise
•$2-3 billion should be spent on short- to medium-term support for innovation in low-emissions technologies, to address market failures and lower the costs of transition to a low-emissions economy

Buzz2600 Buzz2600 9:50 am 21 Mar 11

Breda said: “Well, anyone who gets information about climate science from the ABC is bound to be misled. They don’t even pretend to be impartial, and often (as in this example), quote press releases from environmental lobbyists as gospel. Note the source of this oft repeated untruth in the story. Who the hell are they?

Here is a list that, while imperfect, did not come out of a ‘black box’ like the one the ABC cited, and is pretty consistent across 17 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita…..”

Massive FAIL!

So, your argument relies on wikipedia as a credible source of information? Oh boy.

Pommy bastard Pommy bastard 9:35 am 21 Mar 11

Oh PB, stop digging an even bigger hole for yourself. You’ve made yourself look like a fool by believing – and quoting – green extremists and your red face could light up a room without the need for expensive and unreliable solar and wind power.

I’ve quoted people I agree, though I hardly think the BBC and the Maplecroft Consultancy count as extremists, whereas you have quoted no one. I’m pretty sure that providing verifiable evidence always trumps personal attack and insult, in debate.

Damn sure in fact.

It also trumps putting words in people’s mouths too, (or as we Poms call it “lying”.)

It’s also rather apparent that Krash hasn’t read the report he links to which he found on Wikipedia, as it shows my assertions to be true, and his false.

Again, I stand unchallenged on this matter.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 8:21 am 21 Mar 11

I’m not really fussed about this either way, like all the other green schemes it will cost me money and not achieve very much.

that said it does seem dishonest to push this through before the next election. Surely a better approach for fans of this scheme would be to spend some time, plan out the details, including who will get the tax cuts, what industries are included and how will it be phased in (recommend just the coal industry to start with) and take it to the next election.

A 12-18 month delay isn’t goint to make any difference on a planetary scale and it would seem much better to take this forward with a clear mandate that people can get behind and support rather then just dumping a dead cat on everyone.

krash krash 7:48 am 21 Mar 11

Australia being the top per capita is a myth. Here is where the myth came from. Australia were top of the list of the top 20 total emitters.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Here is a document that the wikipedia link from post #31 has the detail from, where Australia were 12th on the list in 2008. There was even a drop in CO2’s per capita between 2005 to 2008 overall. Page 95 for the details.

http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf

Deref Deref 7:08 am 21 Mar 11

Waiting For Godot said :

Oh PB, stop digging an even bigger hole for yourself. You’ve made yourself look like a fool by believing – and quoting – green extremists and your red face could light up a room without the need for expensive and unreliable solar and wind power.

Figures disproving, please.

Grumpy Old Fart Grumpy Old Fart 9:15 pm 20 Mar 11

As a Grumpy Old Fart does this mean I will have to stop? Who is going to tax the cows? That’s right the sky is falling………

Waiting For Godot Waiting For Godot 5:22 pm 20 Mar 11

Pommy bastard said :

OSLO – The United Arab Emirates, Australia and the United States have the worst overall records for emitting greenhouse gases, according to an index published on Wednesday combining current and historic emissions. The top of the 183-nation ranking, compiled by British consultancy Maplecroft, was dominated by rich countries and OPEC members. It said it aimed to alert investors to countries vulnerable if UN-led climate talks ever agreed wider penalties on carbon.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UAE-Australia-and-US-top-list-of-carbon-emitters-BA2M4?OpenDocument

A study of the world’s power stations has shown the extent to which developed countries produce more carbon dioxide per head than emerging economies. Australians were found to be the world’s worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much CO2 from generating power as China.

The US came second with eight tonnes of the greenhouse gas per head – 16 times more than that produced by India. The US also produced the most CO2 in total, followed by China.
The Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma) website is the first global inventory of emissions and looks at 50,000 power stations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

Oh PB, stop digging an even bigger hole for yourself. You’ve made yourself look like a fool by believing – and quoting – green extremists and your red face could light up a room without the need for expensive and unreliable solar and wind power.

welkin31 welkin31 4:58 pm 20 Mar 11

CSIRO research suggests that our emissions are absorbed by the Australian landmass.
Note this line in the abstract; “The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Of cause if anybody wants to niggle – we could throw in CO2 absorbing in our territorial seas too.
Australia has to bear the costs of being a big dry place, with high freight costs because we are a long way from anywhere. I can see no reason why for once we should not claim a natural advantage – we should tell the “UN – IPCC – international left wing coalition of income redistributors” – that we have no net emissions of carbon dioxide. Simple.

Pommy bastard Pommy bastard 4:15 pm 20 Mar 11

OSLO – The United Arab Emirates, Australia and the United States have the worst overall records for emitting greenhouse gases, according to an index published on Wednesday combining current and historic emissions. The top of the 183-nation ranking, compiled by British consultancy Maplecroft, was dominated by rich countries and OPEC members. It said it aimed to alert investors to countries vulnerable if UN-led climate talks ever agreed wider penalties on carbon.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UAE-Australia-and-US-top-list-of-carbon-emitters-BA2M4?OpenDocument

A study of the world’s power stations has shown the extent to which developed countries produce more carbon dioxide per head than emerging economies. Australians were found to be the world’s worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much CO2 from generating power as China.

The US came second with eight tonnes of the greenhouse gas per head – 16 times more than that produced by India. The US also produced the most CO2 in total, followed by China.
The Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma) website is the first global inventory of emissions and looks at 50,000 power stations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

breda breda 2:18 pm 20 Mar 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

The myth that Australia has the world’s highest per capita carbon admissions has been doing the rounds for a few years and has been proven to be false.

Proof? Evidence ?

Pommy bastard said :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2745751.htm

The latest audit of global carbon emissions has found they are continuing to rise and Australia still holds the lead with the highest emissions per capita among developed nations.
——————————————————————————————————
Well, anyone who gets information about climate science from the ABC is bound to be misled. They don’t even pretend to be impartial, and often (as in this example), quote press releases from environmental lobbyists as gospel. Note the source of this oft repeated untruth in the story. Who the hell are they?

Here is a list that, while imperfect, did not come out of a ‘black box’ like the one the ABC cited, and is pretty consistent across 17 years:

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

Notice that Australia is ranked twelfth, and is around a third of the top emitter, Qatar.

Now, here is a list of country GDP per capita by rank, from the very reliable CIA Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Notice that Qatar, the largest per capita emitter by far, is more than 3 times as rich per capita as Australia. Does that pass the test for being ‘developed’? Countries like Luxembourg, Bahrain, Kuwait, the US etc also have higher or comparable GDP per capita to us, and emit more.

It is undoubtedly true that population distribution and land area, economic profile etc affect each country’s CO2 emissions per capita. That would be why the US, Canada and Australia are pretty much on par, and why the oil rich countries are at the top of the list, by miles.

Even if you believe the ‘CO2 is causing doomsday’ scenario, the picture is a lot more complex than simplistic (and often dishonest) throwaway lines about per capita emissions indicate – for instance, looking at emissions on a per country basis almost turns the per capita list upside down. These numbers highlight the foolishness of cutting our own economic throats so that Kev can prance around lecturing people in international fora, and Julia can whack some more gaffer tape on her wobbling coalition with the Greens.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site