8 April 2015

Seselja claims Labor will restore carbon and mining taxes

| Canfan
Join the conversation
35

Senator for the ACT Zed Seselja has today claimed that Labor will restore its carbon and mining tax slugs on Australians at the first opportunity.

In a press release issued following Andrew Leigh’s comments on government spending and revenue in The Australian, Seselja said:

“The confirmation from Andrew Leigh that the carbon tax would be imposed on Australians under a Labor Government highlights Labor’s support for higher electricity bills and extra cost of living pressures on Australian families.

“The carbon tax was a policy of hurting Australian families, putting jobs at risk and damaging Australia’s international competitiveness,” he said.

“In its last year of operation, the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy and during Labor’s time electricity prices rose dramatically.

“Scrapping the carbon tax has delivered families and businesses in the ACT the biggest drop in electricity prices on record.

“According to the Consumer Price Index for the September Quarter 2014 released in October last year, power bills in the ACT are up to 11.5 per cent lower than they would have been with the carbon tax.

“The Government is committed to tackling climate change without a multi-billion dollar carbon tax that drives up the cost of living for Australian families and businesses.

“Andrew Leigh and Bill Shorten want to take away the savings ACT families and business are seeing with their plan to bring back the carbon tax,” Senator Seselja concluded.

Are you convinced? If Labor did plan to reintroduce the carbon and mining taxes, would it change the way you vote at the next election?

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

dungfungus said :

It’s impossible to do a comparison between other countries and Australia.
For a start, France deducts 5.5% alone from wages and other earnings to part-fund its Medicare equivalent (NHI). This is over twice what the Medicare levy is in Australia. France also levies taxes on everything it can to specifically fund social services and health.
The Australian government also provides huge welfare grants to community based groups that supplement income and services for refugees/migrants. As far as I know, these are “off balance sheet” so they won’t show up in the raw data that the ABC is using.
Why do we need this ABC self-appointed taxpayer- funded “fact checker” anyway? What useful purpose does it provide?

Difficult yes, impossible no.

Why do we need fact checkers? Because at least half of what comes out of a politicians mouth is either wrong or an outright lie. Secondly because I have seen the word ‘fact’ substituted for ‘uninformed opinion’ too many times. Possibly even in this thread.

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

Yeah, It’s a very selective “fact” check.

Particularly when you consider the number one welfare spend is the age pension and Australia has specifically instituted our large Superannuation system to lower spending in this area by requiring individuals to provide much more for themselves.

There’s a number of other metrics that could be used to debate this claim for various welfare payments that weren’t even considered.

It’s impossible to do a comparison between other countries and Australia.
For a start, France deducts 5.5% alone from wages and other earnings to part-fund its Medicare equivalent (NHI). This is over twice what the Medicare levy is in Australia. France also levies taxes on everything it can to specifically fund social services and health.
The Australian government also provides huge welfare grants to community based groups that supplement income and services for refugees/migrants. As far as I know, these are “off balance sheet” so they won’t show up in the raw data that the ABC is using.
Why do we need this ABC self-appointed taxpayer- funded “fact checker” anyway? What useful purpose does it provide?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

Yeah, It’s a very selective “fact” check.

Particularly when you consider the number one welfare spend is the age pension and Australia has specifically instituted our large Superannuation system to lower spending in this area by requiring individuals to provide much more for themselves.

There’s a number of other metrics that could be used to debate this claim for various welfare payments that weren’t even considered.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:58 am 29 Jan 15

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Lets see you provide some proof of another of your ‘assertions of truth’ dungfungus. You make some wild claims of ‘fact’ on here (some true, some probably not true), but rarely if ever can back it up.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

I told you so.

What you didn’t tell us is that the latest “climate change induced extreme weather event” blizzard that was going to cripple New York didn’t happen, just like all the other wild predictions that you warmists make.

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

HiddenDragon7:47 pm 28 Jan 15

Even the original mining tax really was too little, and way too late, to achieve anything like what was hoped for – and then it got burnt in the Labor leadership coup.

As to the carbon tax, the addition to already high electricity prices was unwelcome, but to the extent that those prices were pushed up by “gold-plating”, well, I’m happy to have fewer and shorter power outages.

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

The motor vehicle industry had been on the edge of ruin for a long time. It has only been propped up by ridiculous subsidies for a long time – it was good to finally see the pin pulled on a clearly unsustainable industry within the Australian context (which basically were a huge transfer from the taxpayer to multinational corporations). Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.

The other examples may have more validity – I don’t know. But, at least in concept form, there was nothing wrong with the carbon tax. For in essence (ignoring the arguments around climate change etc) it meant that the cost of production for the firm more closely aligned with the actual social costs of production that incorporate the cost of negative externalities.That is not a bad thing if we actually give two hoots about things other than profit.

I was interested to see if there was any actual hard evidence collated around this issue. Most ‘job loss’ stories – because it is so often presented solely as a ‘point in time’ job loss, rather than a consideration of the actual ‘job flow’ impact (especially around the mining tax). Therefore, the impact is a hell of a lot lower than that said by either side of debate suggested.

“Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.”
That’s not what I said. I said it was another nail in the coffin.

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

The motor vehicle industry had been on the edge of ruin for a long time. It has only been propped up by ridiculous subsidies for a long time – it was good to finally see the pin pulled on a clearly unsustainable industry within the Australian context (which basically were a huge transfer from the taxpayer to multinational corporations). Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.

The other examples may have more validity – I don’t know. But, at least in concept form, there was nothing wrong with the carbon tax. For in essence (ignoring the arguments around climate change etc) it meant that the cost of production for the firm more closely aligned with the actual social costs of production that incorporate the cost of negative externalities.That is not a bad thing if we actually give two hoots about things other than profit.

I was interested to see if there was any actual hard evidence collated around this issue. Most ‘job loss’ stories – because it is so often presented solely as a ‘point in time’ job loss, rather than a consideration of the actual ‘job flow’ impact (especially around the mining tax). Therefore, the impact is a hell of a lot lower than that said by either side of debate suggested.

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

I told you so.

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

If fresh water ice is already floating on sea water, the level of the sea water will actually fall when that ice melts so there is no risk of the fresh water ice causing sea levels to rise as claimed by these so-called scientists.
It is all about volume and displacement – elementary primary school stuff.

It is also about thermal expansion.

I have consulted some papers I have on this subject and accept the following:
“During a period of glaciation, the average global temperature drops considerably and the
volume of the ocean decreases greatly. The water that would otherwise be in the ocean is
frozen as ice in continental glaciers, or as sea ice in the oceans. During the peak of the last
glacial period, global sea level was approximately 100 meters (328 feet) lower than it is today.
Only when the temperature began to warm did the glaciers melt and flow back into the ocean.
This is just one example of how the global climate can have a substantial effect on sea level.
It is estimated that most of the increase in sea level will be from as the result of global warming,
which will cause thermal expansion of the oceans. Thermal expansion is caused when
seawater expands because of the higher temperature of the water. Since the oceans absorb heat
from the atmosphere, when the atmosphere becomes warmer so will the oceans. Warm
seawater has a greater volume than cold seawater. As the temperature of the ocean increases so
will the total ocean volume. The increased volume will cause the level of the water in the
oceans to rise”.
If someone could crunch some numbers we can find out just how much thermal expansion is contributing to the belief that sea levels are rising how many years we have left before the sea level rises 100 metres to what they were in the last glacial period.
I don’t think a rise of 20 cm in the next 100 years will cause us any grief, do you?

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

Mysteryman said :

John Moulis said :

I can’t understand why Abbott abolished not one but two revenue streams – the carbon and mining tax – at a time when they were crowing about a “Budget emergency”. That was $100 billion a year not coming in anymore. It wasn’t unpopular anymore – the previous Labor governments absorbed all the flak from their introduction and Abbott could have just laid back while the money poured in. I received a Facebook post saying that if Abbott hadn’t abolished both taxes and he didn’t go through with Paid Parental Leave, the Budget would be in surplus in three years time.

Do you get all your data from Facebook posts? The last information I could find was from two years ago, but the carbon and mining taxes combined netted the government about $8 billion. Nowhere near your $100 billion figure. To complicate things, the previous Labor government also committed greater sums of money to programs based on the expectation that they would be able to pay for them with the carbon and mining taxes. Unfortunately they got the projections completely wrong, and ended up committing money they didn’t have to things they couldn’t afford.

Abolishing the taxes and some of the related funding commitments was supposed to save money; get rid of some revenue, get rid of greater liabilities. That was the rationale.

Thanks for re-stating the history of Labor’s great big taxes.
The left and the media are trying hard to re-write it so that the purpose of the taxes and their legacies (that Abbott has to deal with) are expunged.
In the same way they are beating up Abbott’s alleged incompetence in awarding a knighthood to Prince Phillip while ignoring the hypocrisy of Bob Hawke awarding the same person an OAM, which was Whitlam’s local equivalent of a knighthood, in 1980.

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

John Moulis said :

I can’t understand why Abbott abolished not one but two revenue streams – the carbon and mining tax – at a time when they were crowing about a “Budget emergency”. That was $100 billion a year not coming in anymore. It wasn’t unpopular anymore – the previous Labor governments absorbed all the flak from their introduction and Abbott could have just laid back while the money poured in. I received a Facebook post saying that if Abbott hadn’t abolished both taxes and he didn’t go through with Paid Parental Leave, the Budget would be in surplus in three years time.

Do you get all your data from Facebook posts? The last information I could find was from two years ago, but the carbon and mining taxes combined netted the government about $8 billion. Nowhere near your $100 billion figure. To complicate things, the previous Labor government also committed greater sums of money to programs based on the expectation that they would be able to pay for them with the carbon and mining taxes. Unfortunately they got the projections completely wrong, and ended up committing money they didn’t have to things they couldn’t afford.

Abolishing the taxes and some of the related funding commitments was supposed to save money; get rid of some revenue, get rid of greater liabilities. That was the rationale.

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

I can’t understand why Abbott abolished not one but two revenue streams – the carbon and mining tax – at a time when they were crowing about a “Budget emergency”. That was $100 billion a year not coming in anymore. It wasn’t unpopular anymore – the previous Labor governments absorbed all the flak from their introduction and Abbott could have just laid back while the money poured in. I received a Facebook post saying that if Abbott hadn’t abolished both taxes and he didn’t go through with Paid Parental Leave, the Budget would be in surplus in three years time.

dungfungus said :

If fresh water ice is already floating on sea water, the level of the sea water will actually fall when that ice melts so there is no risk of the fresh water ice causing sea levels to rise as claimed by these so-called scientists.
It is all about volume and displacement – elementary primary school stuff.

It is also about thermal expansion.

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

Then it not a glacier. More deceit from the “scientists”.
In fact, “glacial ice” is the stuff that turns into icebergs which eventually melt so the outcome is exactly the same.

“Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice”
If fresh water ice is already floating on sea water, the level of the sea water will actually fall when that ice melts so there is no risk of the fresh water ice causing sea levels to rise as claimed by these so-called scientists.
It is all about volume and displacement – elementary primary school stuff.
Anyone want to challenge that?

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

Then it not a glacier. More deceit from the “scientists”.
In fact, “glacial ice” is the stuff that turns into icebergs which eventually melt so the outcome is exactly the same.

I don’t get why the carbon tax was so bad. It brought in the bucks. And I know no one who got the fabled $550 back when it was scrapped, so that was complete propaganda.

And don’t we all know by now that the electricity price hikes were because the stupid power corps continued to ‘invest’ in poles and wires despite a big drop in demand?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

crappicker said :

I certainly wish and expect Labor to bring back both taxes as a matter of urgency.

“Direct Action” seems little more than a downunder version of “Action Directe”, sabotaging sensible and urgently required government action on climate change through an ETS.

Zzzzzzd may stick his head in the sand and act as if the latest CSIRO report on climate change does not sound another dire warning for Australia, but so he fails in his duty to act in the best interests of the ACT.

Hopeless.

With mines closing down all over Australia and future demand for commodities to be satisfied by Brazil and developing countries, what is the point in bringing back a mining tax?
And the carbon tax made no difference to the climate.
It is all academic anyhow as the latest doom and gloom from scientists who have just returned from a cruise to the Antarctic are suggesting warm water (I think they mean slightly less cold water) is getting under a glacier which is twice the size of Victoria and melting it. The result will be a rise of several metres in global sea levels.
I always thought that glaciers were only on land so somehow the “warm” water is going to travel uphill between the land and the glacier to melt it?
Meanwhile, Canberra swelters with high summer daily maximums of under 20 degrees and the East Coast of the USA prepares for the usual winter blizzards.
Yep, we is all doomed!

Water actually moderates the temperatures a fair bit. That is why coastal regions don’t have freezing overnight temperatures. Warm water means warmer air temperatures.

You can’t look at isolated daily temperatures to fulfill your narrow views. Average temperatures are higher. Last year we had a cooler January in day time temps, but then had several 40C days in February.

I find it interesting how people can deny environmental changes because with their eyes they don’t see it, yet have no issue believing in a religion most of which has no confirmation with ones own eyes either! (note: i have no idea on your own particular religious beliefs but I know many deniers who happen to be devoutly religious and state similar reasons to there denials)

I agree with what you say about religious beliefs but I subscribe to Christian values. The line between what climate alarmists believe and what mainstream religious teach is very thin.
You are correct about warm water giving warmer air temperatures but the climate scientists on the latest melting glacier scare say the water is way below the surface (under the glacier) so how can this affect air temperature?
Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?
Re “average” temperatures, the scope of measuring these in recent times is not even a wink in time.
My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Dear Zed,

Please show your working for these figures.

How do you support your assertion that the reduction in electricity bills was due to the carbon tax, rather than the price of coal, and the cessation of gold-plating of infrastructure?

How do you support your assertion that the destruction of the renewable energy industry is good for the economy? Where are Tony Abbott’s “million jobs”? (Note that is a trick question, we all know that Tony really meant there would only be a million jobs left by the time he was done)

Thanks to the income tax threshold being raised by Labor as part of the Carbon Pricing Scheme, I had more money so I was able to live better. The removal of the Carbon Pricing scheme has lowered my electricity bill by about $5 a year, but raised my taxes by a few hundred. The raised tax-free threshold was morebenefit to poorer families, which is why the Liberals had to get rid of it. After all, we can’t go giving the poor an opportunity to improve their lot in life, can we Zed?

I want the Carbon Pricing Scheme back, and I want it migrated to a full-blown ETS as soon as possible. I want to see the ability for farmers to make a few extra quid planting pasture trees. This benefits the environment due to carbon sequestration, benefits the timber industry due to encouragement to plant hardwood forests for better quality timber, benefits livestock due to better quality pasture (even cows need shade), and benefits me since I get a more pleasant countryside to traipse through on my excursions to visit the country folk.

well of Labor will bring back the carbon tax and stupid carbon credits. All though I don’t know why they want to make abuisness people make money from shuffling paper certificates around.

you can also expect open border policy again from Labor and let more Mad Monnis’s become Australian citizens.

Bosworth said :

“Something needs to be done to repair the Liberal’s budget mess.

Labor made the uncontrollable mess we are in. No Government could fix the $ hundreds of billions of debt in one term. It will take a generation to pay off. All the Labor voters and politicians complain about debt but don’t want to make any sacrifice to pay the money back that they wasted and pissed up the wall.

Labor have never made a significant dent in any debt ever they created and only increased it. We had the mining boom and they even wrecked that.

All this debt has to be paid in US dollars so courtesy of Labor the debt is still rising with our falling dollar.

Australia isn’t the problem climate change hypocrites. When I go out west I can see for hundreds of kilometers and no air pollution to be seen. I can even drink the river water.

Unlike other countries populated with billions of people where you can’t see 5 km’s because of air pollution.

Labor are rotten to the core and their traditional values are dying with the older Labor generation. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

crappicker said :

I certainly wish and expect Labor to bring back both taxes as a matter of urgency.

“Direct Action” seems little more than a downunder version of “Action Directe”, sabotaging sensible and urgently required government action on climate change through an ETS.

Zzzzzzd may stick his head in the sand and act as if the latest CSIRO report on climate change does not sound another dire warning for Australia, but so he fails in his duty to act in the best interests of the ACT.

Hopeless.

So ACT Labor increasing electricity prices, rates and doubling our water bills is good for the ACT residents.

All a carbon tax does is make money for financial institutions at the peril of the working class and does nothing for our country.

dungfungus said :

crappicker said :

I certainly wish and expect Labor to bring back both taxes as a matter of urgency.

“Direct Action” seems little more than a downunder version of “Action Directe”, sabotaging sensible and urgently required government action on climate change through an ETS.

Zzzzzzd may stick his head in the sand and act as if the latest CSIRO report on climate change does not sound another dire warning for Australia, but so he fails in his duty to act in the best interests of the ACT.

Hopeless.

With mines closing down all over Australia and future demand for commodities to be satisfied by Brazil and developing countries, what is the point in bringing back a mining tax?
And the carbon tax made no difference to the climate.
It is all academic anyhow as the latest doom and gloom from scientists who have just returned from a cruise to the Antarctic are suggesting warm water (I think they mean slightly less cold water) is getting under a glacier which is twice the size of Victoria and melting it. The result will be a rise of several metres in global sea levels.
I always thought that glaciers were only on land so somehow the “warm” water is going to travel uphill between the land and the glacier to melt it?
Meanwhile, Canberra swelters with high summer daily maximums of under 20 degrees and the East Coast of the USA prepares for the usual winter blizzards.
Yep, we is all doomed!

Water actually moderates the temperatures a fair bit. That is why coastal regions don’t have freezing overnight temperatures. Warm water means warmer air temperatures.

You can’t look at isolated daily temperatures to fulfill your narrow views. Average temperatures are higher. Last year we had a cooler January in day time temps, but then had several 40C days in February.

I find it interesting how people can deny environmental changes because with their eyes they don’t see it, yet have no issue believing in a religion most of which has no confirmation with ones own eyes either! (note: i have no idea on your own particular religious beliefs but I know many deniers who happen to be devoutly religious and state similar reasons to there denials)

“Labor will restore the carbon and mining tax at the first opportunity.”

Great! The sooner the better.

Something needs to be done to repair the Liberal’s budget mess.

Milly Withers12:16 pm 27 Jan 15

So Zed says that Labor’s policies hurt Australian families, put jobs at risk and damage Australia’s international competitiveness… at the same time that his government has gutted billions from schools, universities, the public service, the pension and Medicare. He’s got a nerve.

Sounds like Zed knows the current government’s in trouble and is clutching at straws to convince voters otherwise. Embarrassing.

crappicker said :

I certainly wish and expect Labor to bring back both taxes as a matter of urgency.

“Direct Action” seems little more than a downunder version of “Action Directe”, sabotaging sensible and urgently required government action on climate change through an ETS.

Zzzzzzd may stick his head in the sand and act as if the latest CSIRO report on climate change does not sound another dire warning for Australia, but so he fails in his duty to act in the best interests of the ACT.

Hopeless.

With mines closing down all over Australia and future demand for commodities to be satisfied by Brazil and developing countries, what is the point in bringing back a mining tax?
And the carbon tax made no difference to the climate.
It is all academic anyhow as the latest doom and gloom from scientists who have just returned from a cruise to the Antarctic are suggesting warm water (I think they mean slightly less cold water) is getting under a glacier which is twice the size of Victoria and melting it. The result will be a rise of several metres in global sea levels.
I always thought that glaciers were only on land so somehow the “warm” water is going to travel uphill between the land and the glacier to melt it?
Meanwhile, Canberra swelters with high summer daily maximums of under 20 degrees and the East Coast of the USA prepares for the usual winter blizzards.
Yep, we is all doomed!

I certainly wish and expect Labor to bring back both taxes as a matter of urgency.

“Direct Action” seems little more than a downunder version of “Action Directe”, sabotaging sensible and urgently required government action on climate change through an ETS.

Zzzzzzd may stick his head in the sand and act as if the latest CSIRO report on climate change does not sound another dire warning for Australia, but so he fails in his duty to act in the best interests of the ACT.

Hopeless.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.