Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

No Carbon Tax Rally

By 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
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
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 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”.

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?

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 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 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 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 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 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

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site