FYI: Tax rates going up

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by WMD351

That's what really sticks in my craw. Pensioners and the poor are going without, scared to turn on their heaters, going to bed early so they don't have to turn on the lights, and doing everything they can to cut back, but it makes no difference!
There's going to be a tax, so prices go up.
There's not going to be a tax, so prices go up.
There's uncertainty about the tax, prices go up again.
I pay the service fees to cover infrastructure, but apparently they've failed to maintain the infrastructure and it needs a complete overhaul, more charges...
.

The compo for two pensioners on the sums I have seen puts them more than $100 a month better off.

[Statler]

Ross Gittins SMH

Gillard's imperfect carbon plan is just that little bit better
July 16, 2011

In this far from perfect world, no reform that makes it into law is ever ideal. It's always flawed and internally inconsistent, a product of the compromise necessitated by our democracy. Of course, some reform attempts are more flawed than others. So the question for Julia Gillard's carbon tax package is: is it too flawed to be worth bothering with?

With Kevin Rudd's carbon pollution reduction scheme in 2009, the compromise was negotiated with the Liberals. But they reneged at the last minute, sacking Malcolm Turnbull and turning to Tony Abbott because so many of them doubted that climate change was real.

The Greens, who were excluded from the negotiations, helped the Coalition vote it down in the Senate, arguing it would do too little to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and gave too much compensation to the big polluting industries. Knock this one back and they'd have to come up with something better.



With Gillard's package, the compromise has been done with the Greens and the independents. In the meantime, Abbott has had so much success arousing opposition to action on climate change that the continuing supporters of action aren't in a mood to be picky. They'll take what they can get.

But the question remains: is the new package worth all the angst it's causing? And is it much better as a result of the Greens' ministrations?
For starters, it's just a modified version of the Rudd scheme, not radically different. So the ''big polluters'' will still get as much compensation, if not more. But although most economists agree they're getting more compensation than is justified (those competing in export markets against foreign producers not burdened by a carbon tax do need some relief), most economists would also agree the compensation isn't likely to greatly diminish their efforts to reduce emissions.

Non-economists seem to think you can't get people to change their behaviour unless you punish them. Take money from them and they'll change their ways. Economists think the main way to discourage a particular activity is to raise its price relative to the price of other activities. You don't have to take money from them (the ''income effect'' as economists call it) to get them to respond to the changed price structure (the ''substitution effect'').

Most of the compensation will go to the ''emissions-intensive, trade-exposed'' industries, in the form of free emission permits. But each firm's compo will be based on the average emissions of firms in their industry. So those with above-average emissions, which they'll need to cover by buying extra permits, have a clear incentive to find ways to reduce their emissions.
But even those with average or below-average emissions also have an incentive to reduce emissions. Why? Because they'll be able to sell to other firms any of their free permits they don't need.

Thus, just as the Rudd scheme would have done more to discourage emissions than many people imagined, so this package will also discourage emissions.

Gillard's package is widely described as a carbon tax but, strictly speaking, it's an emissions trading scheme in which the price of emission permits is fixed for the first three years and permits made freely available, after which the price is set by auction, with an ever-declining quantity of permits made available each year.

So it's not hugely different from the Rudd scheme, which itself planned to start with a price fixed at $10 a tonne of carbon emissions in the first year. This time the price will start at $23 a tonne, increased in each of the two subsequent years by 2.5 per cent in real terms - an improvement.

The reductions in the trading scheme's cap on emissions - needed to reduce total emissions over time and thus likely to gradually raise the price of permits - will now be set by the government on the basis of recommendations by an independent climate change authority, chaired by a former Reserve Bank governor, Bernie Fraser. An improvement.

Another improvement is that the independent Productivity Commission, no soft touch, will review the levels of assistance provided to trade-exposed industries with a view to reducing them as other countries limit the emissions of their own industries.

The Rudd scheme was widely criticised because its guaranteed reduction in emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 was considered too small. It's actually more demanding than it sounds because, without action, our emissions would grow a lot between 2000 and 2020. Achieving the 5 per cent target will require emissions in 2020 to be 23 per cent lower that they'd otherwise be.

However, both the old scheme and the new allow for the target reduction to be increased to 15 per cent or 25 per cent of 2000 levels if other countries tighten their own targets. The old scheme aimed to reduce emissions in 2050 to 60 per cent below 2000 levels, whereas the new one aims for 80 per cent below.

Rudd included transport fuels in his scheme while excluding cars and farm vehicles for three years and heavy road vehicles for one year. Gillard's scheme excludes cars and farm vehicles ''forever'' and imposes the equivalent of a carbon price - just 6¢ a litre - on aviation, mining and shipping, extending this to heavy road vehicles after two years.
But nothing is forever in politics and, in any case, does anyone expect the world price of oil to do anything but keep rising?

Gillard's scheme provides substantially more support for innovation, mainly through a $10 billion clean energy finance corporation, which will give a partial subsidy to those firms that win the assistance by proposing better schemes to reduce emissions.

Her scheme also includes (at the behest of an independent, Tony Windsor) a land-sector package worth $1 billion over four years, which will improve biodiversity (the preservation of species) and encourage more eco-friendly farming practices.

Gillard has roundly attacked Abbott's plan for ''direct action'' on climate change rather than ''putting a price on carbon'', but her package also includes direct action - such as buying out the hugely polluting brown coal power stations.

There's nothing wrong with a two-pronged approach in principle, so long as the direct measures aren't too wildly expensive per tonne of carbon avoided or just disguised handouts to rent-seeking industries (as the brown coal buy-out seems to be).

Rudd's flawed scheme was always worth doing; this one is better - just a bit.
Ross Gittins is the economics editor.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/gilla...#ixzz1SD5vKHcJ

[Statler]

All businesses look to cut costs as a means of increasing profit or competitve advange - otherwise Ford would not be going Ecoboost or Ligas

NSW businesses cashing in on drive for energy efficiency



Ben Cubby
July 16, 2011 .


THE state's small- and medium-sized businesses are reaping the benefits of government energy-efficiency programs, saving a combined $70 million in power costs for about $8 million in government subsidies in the past two years, new data shows.

So far, 345 dairies have participated in energy-efficiency programs in NSW and some have saved as much as 15 per cent on the cost of refrigerating milk.

In the past year, 247 butchers have saved up to 8 per cent, or roughly $1240 a year, on energy costs. And 2393 cafes and restaurants have improved their energy performance by up to 13 per cent, or $1362 a year.


One winery, Tamburlaine in the Hunter Valley, was able to cut its energy use by three-quarters and save $110,000 a year.

The changes range from simple measures such as switching light bulbs to remote-controlled cooling and heating, or changing voltage and fan speeds.

''In terms of environmental benefits, it reduces costs for business, it reduces demand for electricity, it reduces carbon emissions,'' said the NSW Environment Minister, Robyn Parker.

Country areas stand out for the highest number of businesses who are participating, with only North Sydney, Sydney and Marrickville making it into the top 10 regions.

Most of the programs were initiated under the previous state government and some face funding pressure under the new government. The current government opposes the federal government's carbon pricing plan, which includes a substantial energy-efficiency component, but Ms Parker said NSW would work with its federal counterpart where necessary.

''We can work with whoever can deliver good environmental outcomes - we have worked productively with the federal government in the solar flagships program - but I think programs like this deliver much better outcomes than a carbon tax. That is our position,'' she said.

The government said it would publish mandated targets for energy-efficiency savings later this year.

''We're working towards targets [for energy efficiency] and we hope that we will have those available as part of a broader state plan within a few months,'' Ms Parker said.

There are about 20,000 businesses in NSW classified as medium-sized energy users and the government says it will provide energy-efficiency subsidies to 5 per cent of them over the next five years.

The national industry body, the Energy Efficiency Council, said the NSW data was similar to that from other states, but much more could be done.

''NSW's energy-efficiency programs are already helping businesses save over $56 million a year, but we haven't even started to scratch the surface,'' the council's chief executive, Rob Murray-Leach, said.

''Energy efficiency could save the economy over $5 billion a year … These programs show that people who claim the carbon price will damage the economy are talking pure rubbish.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/co...#ixzz1SD6vhVOu

[Statler]

Farmers reject Abbott sums
Lenore Taylor
July 16, 2011


FARMERS say the Coalition is dramatically underestimating the cost of greenhouse reductions from soil carbon, which makes up 60 per cent of its direct action plan to cut emissions.

Alongside warnings the Coalition could need to pay up to $500 million a year to subsidise power prices, the new estimates raise questions about whether the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, could achieve a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 within his capped $10.5 billion budget for the direct action plan.


As the government begins its $12 million advertising campaign tomorrow night to combat voter opposition to its incoming carbon tax, Mr Abbott is assuring voters his direct action fund could achieve the same emission cuts without extra costs for businesses or families.

But Michael Kiely, the chairman of the Carbon Farming and Trading Association, said: ''Australian farmers won't line up to sell an Abbott government soil carbon at bargain basement prices.''

The Coalition policy proposes to buy soil carbon cuts for $8 to $10 a tonne.
But Mr Kiely, whom the Coalition cited as a supporter when direct action was launched, said there was ''too much uncertainty with this program. It can be cut off at any time … there is too much risk for a farmer to take for a few dollars a tonne".

He said the price would need to be about $25 a tonne and the rules clearer. But at $25 a tonne, the soil carbon abatement alone would cost close to double the $1.2 billion a year set aside by the Coalition for its emissions reduction fund. That fund is also supposed to pay for abatement from electricity generators, forestry, coalmines, transport, buildings and landfill.
The Coalition has said it expects a high-emitting brown coal-fired power station such as Hazelwood in Victoria to apply to the fund for subsidised early closure - a policy emulated in the Gillard government's clean energy plan. It would subsidise the higher cost replacement gas power to make sure household power bills did not rise.

Experts have now estimated this pledge could cost the emissions reduction fund $500 million a year, on top of the billions required to bring forward the plant's closure.

The chief economist at AGL, Paul Simshauser, said the subsidy alone would cost ''upwards of half a billion dollars a year''.

Tony Wood, of the Grattan Institute, said the subsidy could cost $200 million to $500 million a year, depending on how quickly gas prices rose.
The Coalition's spokesman on the environment, Greg Hunt, said the Coalition would ''choose the lowest-cost industrial transformation. That may or may not include power station conversion''.

The chief executive of Sustainable Business Australia, Andrew Petersen, agreed it would be difficult for farmers to deliver abatement at $8 to $10 a tonne.

But the executive director of Ignite Energy Resources, John White, who is on Mr Hunt's business advisory committee, said the price range was entirely feasible: ''When you teach farmers how to use these new technologies they start doing it with no carbon price at all.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-electi...#ixzz1SD88VZW6

[Statler]

Simply may not be the best with carbon


The Coalition's plan to cut emissions poses a number of questions, writes Lenore Taylor.

Australians are supposed to have a choice between two plans to cut greenhouse emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 - Julia Gillard's carbon tax and Tony Abbott's direct action plan.

Labor's tax hits 500 businesses and flows through to higher consumer prices, with low- and middle-income households compensated and higher-income households hit with extra costs that average about $10 a week in the first year.

The Coalition's simpler plan costs just $10.5 billion over 10 years ($3.2 billion over the first four years), but apparently this means no pain for anyone.


''It doesn't involve any increase in prices to consumers. It doesn't involve any extra burdens on business or any threat to jobs, and because we will pay for it out of savings it doesn't involve any additional burden on taxpayers,'' Abbott says in interview after interview.

Voters, perhaps unsurprisingly, seem to prefer the simple scheme that comes almost free.

But most experts can't figure out how it adds up, saying the scheme - currently set out on just a few pages - will either cost more or fail to reach its target. The Coalition cannot name an economist who supports it. A survey of 145 economists at a Canberra conference this week found 59 per cent thought the government plan was ''good economic policy'' while only 11 per cent said the same of ''direct action''.

The great advantage of direct action is that its cost is fixed. Abbott has repeatedly said he won't spend a cent more than the $10.5 billion. The carbon tax, on the other hand, costs almost $4 billion more than it raises from selling pollution permits in the first four years and could be a drain on Treasury coffers in the future, depending on the price set by the trading scheme and whether the Greens succeed in pushing the 2020 target above 5 per cent.

Direct action's biggest problem is that most observers think it is highly unlikely to reach its emissions reduction target, given that government grant programs are notoriously inefficient, given all the ducking and weaving it does to avoid creating any political losers, and given there will be no more money if it comes up short.

And they are almost certain it can't achieve the abatement for its nominated price.

Direct action proposes that about 60 per cent of Australia's emission reductions in 2020 - about 85 million tonnes - come from soil carbon, the purchase of which it budgets at between $8 and $10 a tonne.

Storing carbon in soil and vegetation certainly has huge potential, and the government has set up a market to allow businesses to offset their pollution liabilities by buying offsets from farmers.

But experts such as Peter Cosier, of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, say it is very unlikely the Coalition can achieve the amount of abatement it is banking on at its budgeted price.

The co-convenor of the Carbon Coalition, Michael Kiely, who was cited by the opposition in support of its policy when it was released in February last year, tells the Herald there is no way ''farmers would be lining up to sell an Abbott government soil carbon at bargain basement prices of $8 to $10''. He says the price would need to ''start at $25 and head north''.

Kiely says they were particularly worried about taking on the risk involved in the long-term commitment to leave the carbon permanently stored and would definitely not sell for the Coalition's nominated price.

"We alerted them to the risk/return issue at the time. That detail must have been lost in the political bun fight," he says.

Another 15 million tonnes of abatement in 2020 is supposed to come from ''long rotation'' tree plantations, but the timber industry says that requires up to 600,000 hectares of cleared agricultural land, and the National Party says it has a guarantee no viable farmland will be converted to plantations, so it is not clear where the Coalition intends to plant them.
Another 15 million tonnes of abatement could come from paying a brown-coal-fired generator to close down - an idea now copied by Labor alongside its carbon tax.

The Coalition's climate change spokesman, Greg Hunt, used to say he expected a big brown-coal-fired generator to make a bid for funding from the Coalition's emissions reduction fund, but lately the Coalition has been saying such a bid would be considered only if it offered ''lowest cost abatement''.

That could be because of the cost of the Coalition's promise to also pay a subsidy, on top of the multi-billion cost of plant retirement, to ensure the replacement generation from a closed-cycle gas plant would never push up household power bills.

AGL's chief economist, Paul Simshauser, says subsidy would cost ''upwards of half a billion dollars a year'', a lot more than the indicative cost in the Coalition's estimates.

Direct action's entire budget for its emissions reduction fund - including soil carbon and reducing electricity emissions - is only $1 billion a year.
Simshauser says an even bigger problem is that the policy gave no investment signals to the rest of the electricity industry.

''The greater costs of adopting such an approach are likely to come from ongoing uncertainty in relation to investment conditions within the electricity sector. Several studies by some of Australia's leading energy economists in industry and in advisory firms have established that the cost of ongoing climate change policy uncertainty within the power sector could be as high as $3 billion per year by 2020,'' he says.

But despite all these questions about whether direct action can achieve its target at the allocated price, another big difference between the Coalition and Labor is that Abbott says he will achieve the full 5 per cent abatement domestically, while Labor will let companies buy up to 50 per cent of their abatement offshore.

Abbott says this is a fundamental flaw in Labor's proposition - that it imposes all the pain of a tax, but of the 160 million tonnes of emissions reduction needed in 2020, it finds only 60 million tonnes through action at home and predicts companies will buy 100 million tonnes offshore.

''We'll be spending $3.5 billion on overseas carbon credits in 2020 … it is an astronomical amount of money … I think it's very hard to take seriously a plan which is proposing to spend that much money overseas,'' Abbott has said, often adding that the government is ''throwing itself on the mercy'' of ''dodgy carbon traders'' in questionable countries such as Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan.

There have been examples of fraud in international carbon markets, but there are rules in the government's plan about what kind of international permits would be considered acceptable.

Big business thinks the ''safety valve'' of international permits is the only way to allow Australia to change its economy gradually, while still exploiting its comparative advantage in emissions-intensive industries.

''A least-cost scheme needs access to the international market. If we try to do all of our abatement domestically it will become much, much more expensive,'' Maria Tarrant, the deputy chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, says.

Which takes the argument straight to the central difference between the two propositions. The carbon tax is designed to start a gradual transformation of the Australian economy so that it produces things in more energy-efficient way.

Direct action is designed to - perhaps - take 5 per cent out of Australia's emissions by 2020 in a politically painless way, but to leave the economy effectively unchanged, with electricity generated in much the same way and industries operating as they do now.

It appears to be based on the presumption that the 5 per cent reduction is all the greenhouse gas cutting Australia will ever have to do, because the cost of trying to do more in 10 years' time without having made any changes to the economy in the meantime would truly be enormous.
Asked about the future of coal and electricity generation at a Brisbane community forum on Thursday night, Abbott answered with another question. ''Do you really want to transform society?'' His implied answer is clearly no.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...#ixzz1SD90w9vb

[cheap]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i'm against nuclear as i'm sure most australians would be .

I'm not so sure, if you go back through this thread, treasury figures reveal that with an ETS by 2050, Australia would need to be purchasing $57 billion dollars of CO2 abatements annually. $57 billion per year going oversea!

This is money we could spend on schools, roads, health care, pensions and so on. Instead it goes overseas to C02 traders.

I would put it to you this way, if you gave Australian people the choice of having $57 billion per year leaving Australian hands or Nuclear (which would dramatically reduce this abatement figure), which do you think Australians would choose.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Do you realise that we already pay ~ 20cents/kWh in this country for coal based electricity when thats the actual value shown on the graph for solar?

Do you realise that at the top of the graph, in great big text it says "PRODUCTION COST"?? Solar as a generator is only accepted because we can live with it. It is terribly inefficient and horribly expensive - far more now with the Solar bonus'.

Solar has a finite shelf life as a favourite in domestic applications, its days are numbered.

[z80]

Originally Posted by Scott

Solar has a finite shelf life as a favourite in domestic applications, its days are numbered.

that's a new one...can you explain that to me?

[tweeked]

I love the greenies and their opposition to hydro.

Scenario 1.
I want to build a dam and make clean renewable power. I will put in a fish lift for the cute fishies.........

"oh no, you will be destroying a beautiful valley and creating a horrible big lake"

Scenario 2. l
lets just say i want to get rid of a lake by blowing up a natural bottle neck in a river .......

"oh no, you will be destroying a beautiful big lake and creating a horrible valley"


Now one of these is just stupid, but the other is the cleanest cheap, viable energy there is. The greenies though see no difference between the two - even though they totally contradict themselves

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by mcnews

The compo for two pensioners on the sums I have seen puts them more than $100 a month better off.

For how long though?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by z80

that's a new one...can you explain that to me?

I generalised, I should have said "Traditional PV Cells" will lose favour.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by cheap

I'm not so sure, if you go back through this thread, treasury figures reveal that with an ETS by 2050, Australia would need to be purchasing $57 billion dollars of CO2 abatements annually. $57 billion per year going oversea!

This is money we could spend on schools, roads, health care, pensions and so on. Instead it goes overseas to C02 traders.

I would put it to you this way, if you gave Australian people the choice of having $57 billion per year leaving Australian hands or Nuclear (which would dramatically reduce this abatement figure), which do you think Australians would choose.

well me with my untrusting ways would probably still oppose nuclear . remember the govt have set up that $57b per year going out for a reason . and that reason is not to lose money for themselves . im sure there is more in it for the than keeping it onshore .
and telling the public your scenario would be also an out right LIE , and there would be a catch , and australians would not see cheaper prices .
so my answer would still be NO .

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Scott

I generalised, I should have said "Traditional PV Cells" will lose favour.

YEAH I WAS , going to ask you why also . but since you clarified i agree .
these solar panels are 1st generation . just like the model T ford .
there is already trials for solar paint , on roof tops . ( invisible panel if you like ) caovering your whole of roof area.
aside from that i can see buildings being built with ergonomic modern actractive built in solar panels . not bolt down eysore panels . that is the reason i held off getting solar panels , the other reason is i wasnt sure if id hang around here till the panels are paid off .

[SEZ213]

I'm going to throw it out there and make a crazy accusation that the Sydney Morning Herald is full of trash journalists...who are clearly on someone's payroll..

In the interest of fairness...lets have a look at another...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226095570562

Carbon fiddling as world economy burns

Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large
From: The Australian
July 16, 2011 12:00AM


THIS week Europe hovered on the brink with its debt crisis threatening more nations in the eurozone, America was mired in gridlock over its huge debt burden and Australia declared its confidence in the domestic and world economies by moving to price carbon.

The juxtaposition is staggering. In the advanced economies there are 45 million jobless. Public debt as a portion of gross domestic product is 145 per cent in Greece, 120 per cent in Italy and about 100 per cent in the US. This constitutes a crisis of governance in the West and an intellectual crossroads for economic policy with competing needs to boost activity yet reduce debt.

Never has Australia's political divorce from the rest of the West seemed more stunning. Never have the policy priorities between Australia and the rest of the world seemed so stark. The contrast was in-your-face blatant yet almost unremarked.

The legacy of Australia's sailing through the post-2008 global financial crisis is the ability of our political system this year to legislate an economy-wide carbon price presented by Julia Gillard this week as Labor's "biggest reform yet" and an economic transformation comparable with the 1983 float of the dollar.

The week saw a repeat of the lesson from the last year: the North Atlantic zone remains locked in the consequences from the GFC. Excess liquidity has saved the world from a deeper recession but the collective private, public and sovereign debt crisis is the No 1 issue today within industrialised nations. But not Australia.

Australia under Gillard is either being brilliantly clever in exploiting its escape from the GFC or engaged in an act of strategic folly by putting lead in the saddle bags of its comparative advantage of cheap energy.

The first question, therefore, is whether Labor has misread the global trend. It is whether the Gillard government is locked into an insulated political fantasy as the rest of the world sinks into the financial mire.

The second question, however, is whether Labor has misread the domestic economy and is pricing carbon at the exact time when much of the non-resources sector is alarmed at stagnant conditions. Labor should be alerted by the reaction last Sunday of the three main industry groups, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, expressing deep worry at carbon pricing now. It is no good just dismissing them as rent-seekers.

Westpac chief economist Bill Evans, in a report issued yesterday, predicts a dramatic change of sentiment and a new cycle of interest rate cuts triggered by the renewed global crisis, subdued domestic conditions and, wait for it, rising unemployment through 2012, the year the carbon price begins.

Evans says, "The turning point in the labour market may have already been reached." If true, this means a new set of horrors for Gillard Labor -- rising unemployment as well as rising cost-of-living pressures in tandem with carbon pricing.

Admitting his forecasts are on the pessimistic side, Evans says "fear within the financial system in Europe" looks set to "intensify". He forecasts unemployment heading next year towards 5.5 per cent to 5.7 per cent. He believes the economic cycle for the rest of this year and next year will be set by "falling consumer confidence and global financial turmoil spilling over to business confidence". The weakest sectors are expected to be retail, manufacturing and non-mining construction, and carbon tax concerns "have contributed to the recent slide in consumer confidence".

There is now a critical rift between the views of the official forecasters and sections of the private sector. Gillard and Wayne Swan have expressed their confidence about the strength of the economy. If unemployment does rise the carbon price scheme is not to blame. But it will be invested with blame by Tony Abbott.

This raises a pivotal issue for Gillard's future: has Labor misread the domestic currents into which it will launch the great carbon event?

Rarely has any prime minister aimed higher than Gillard this week. Yet there is a profound egoism in Gillard's policy and rhetoric given the narrowness of her political base, the polarisation within the nation, the precarious condition of the global economy and the longevity of the policy's cycle running out to 2050.

Memories are short. This was not Gillard's plan in the 2010 campaign (and this is not a reference to the carbon tax). In the campaign Gillard backed the principle of carbon pricing but she said wanted a political consensus before acting. How wise, in retrospect. Indeed, this was the advice Gillard gave Kevin Rudd earlier in the year asking him to back off his own scheme. She was consistent in the campaign but changed her mind post-election.

Why?

The answer lies in the September 1, 2010, formal alliance between Labor and the Greens, with paragraph 6.1 (a) saying Australia must price carbon and that a multi-party committee be established and resourced as a cabinet committee to pursue this goal.

That is, the price for Gillard being a minority PM with a working majority was to press ahead with her carbon scheme. Once the multi-party committee got cracking (the agreement required that its structure, membership and work plan be finalised by the end of September) it became obvious this committee and not the so-called consensus-seeking Citizens Assembly would drive the process.

This led directly to Gillard's policy last Sunday with its joint ownership of Labor, Greens and independents.

The answer, therefore, is that Australia has this policy because it was essential to meet Labor's political needs to form a viable minority government. The irony is that the policy that gave life to Gillard's government might be the policy that extinguishes it.

This complex but elemental motivation for Gillard's position is now a crucial factor in its own right. Despite her invoking idealism, too much of this policy arises from Gillard's own needs rather than the nation's immediate needs. Her change of mind (symbolised by the carbon tax) has been recruited by Abbott to destroy public trust in the PM. Once lost, it is hard to recover.

No leader has ever tried to mount such a reform with a primary vote at 27 per cent, with an opposition so strong in the parliament and so hostile to the idea and with public opinion so alienated. The fact this is a joint Labor-Greens policy, while essential to win the votes in parliament, will become a further negative for Labor in the nation.

The mood this week was ominous. Gillard is the architect of her own problems yet some of the attack she faced was personal, nasty and ignorant. It came from sections of the media that prefer to play the woman rather than the issue. Yet Gillard's effort to inject emotion into her persona and presentation at the National Press Club was not a success -- she was too defensive in trying to explain herself and suddenly looked too vulnerable.

The eruption over the media, with the Greens seizing on events in Britain to demand an inquiry into media ownership, regulation and standards littered with repeated criticism of the Murdoch group is unlikely to help Labor. Greens backers and ABC loyalists will cheer Bob Brown but the public is not so dumb as to miss the obvious: this looks like an opportunistic push from the pro-carbon tax political wing to nail some anti-carbon media outlets. Gillard, frankly, needs to be careful here. With emotions running high inside Labor on this issue she should cool, not inflame, them.

As she confronts the long sell, the PM aspires to the mantle of strong leadership that keeps eluding her. Comparing her policy with the float, she says it is "the big enabling decision, the big change which sets the ball rolling for all the others, the big call for the future" that, once made, nobody would seek to undo. Seizing the clean energy position, Gillard talks of "tidal in Western Australia, solar in Queensland, wind in NSW, geothermal in South Australia, clean coal in Victoria and co-generation in Tasmania" but asserts the key to such progress is pricing carbon.

Pricing power will work eventually, big time. The Treasury projects a 2050 carbon price in real terms of $131 a tonne. At that point the policy envisages a $100 billion renewable industry providing 40 per cent of energy needs and conventional coal (separate from carbon capture and storage) falling from 70 per cent to 10 per cent of the energy mix.

It is a far-reaching change in Australia's society. The scientists and economists behind Gillard reflect an "insider" faith convinced of its wisdom. Abbott says he will follow the people, not economists or scientists, a symbol of the different politics he represents that Labor has been unable to counter.

Gillard's scheme starts nice and slow. The immediate consumer price index impact in 2012-13 is only 0.7 per cent, far below the John Howard GST. Yet the politics transcend such numbers.

There are two big questions: given global and domestic economic conditions, is this the best reform now or should productivity enhancement be Australia's priority? And, given global economic woes, how credible is it to believe the rest of the world will move promptly on climate change, the critical assumption that underpins the entire policy?

The last bit, this is what gets me...because as far as Gillard is concerned, we 'should' because the rest will follow...WILL THEY, REALLY??

[SEZ213]

And a little more...with regard to where the carbon price is estimated to end up...a treasury projection...

http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/

Treasury projection 2050 Carbon Price of $131 to $275 per tonne

Prime Minister Julia Gillard likes to tell the Australia people that the carbon tax will have only a small impact on them. However its only the beginning.

The treasury projections for 2050 are in real terms (discounted for inflation) from a minimum of $131 per tonne to a maximum of $275 per tonne. Of course the carbon tax will be hidden as an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) by then, but it will still be a tax on Australian industry and people.

Imagine if a $23 per tonne carbon tax causes a 10% increase in power prices (although the NSW government says it will be 20%), what will a $275 carbon tax, ten times larger do to electricity prices?

Imagine what a carbon price on petrol and diesel, which the greens want to introduce, will do to fuel prices at a carbon tax of $275 per tonne?

the carbon price ever increasing

What percentage of global emissions will Australias carbon tax reduce?

Labor/Greens alliance Prime Minister Julia Gillard does not like to answer this question, because it is such a small number.

The Carbon Tax aims to reduce Australia’s CO2 output by 160 million tonnes. World CO2 emissions in 2008 were 29,888,121 million tonnes.

So that makes Australia’s CO2 reduction 0.00053533% . That is such a small number its hard to comprehend. Think of it as approximately 5/10,000 or 5 divided by ten thousand percent.

However that is based on 2008 CO2 output, and the 160 million tonnes saving is aimed to happen in 2020. What is the percentage saving of the worlds CO2 output by Australia in 2020?

Well its predicted that CO2 output will rise by 1.2% per annum. That means in 2020 world carbon dioxide emissions will be 34,487,742 million tonnes.

So Australia’s carbon tax saves 0.000463933% of the worlds CO2 output. Its even less than 5 divided by ten thousand percent.

Billions of dollars of taxes on Australia people and businesses. Extra federal government agencies with thousands more bureaucrats. Businesses closing and businesses moving off-shore.

All to save 0.000463933% of the worlds CO2 output.

The graphs in the article are what stood out...

[SEZ213]

And add to that, in 2007 Bob Brown wanted coal exports gone...and he openly said that...but now he doesn't want us to remember he said that...and that Murdoch 'created' it...well, that would explain his latest little endeavour with regard to the media wouldn't it?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well me with my untrusting ways would probably still oppose nuclear . remember the govt have set up that $57b per year going out for a reason . and that reason is not to lose money for themselves . im sure there is more in it for the than keeping it onshore .
and telling the public your scenario would be also an out right LIE , and there would be a catch , and australians would not see cheaper prices .
so my answer would still be NO .

The $57 billion is unfunded, you and your family will be paying for this mess. If you don't believe me, ring the treasure department and ask them the forecast CO2 abatement costs for 2050 (and beyond) and from where the money is coming from.

Here is another article on this sleeping giant rip-off.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226095805407

This CO2 tax promises lots of things but the reality (as more people examine it):

Energy Policy - FAIL
Social Welfare - FAIL
Industry Development - FAIL
Balancing the budget - FAIL
Family Assistance - FAIL
CO2 Control - FAIL
Global Warming Control - FAIL

Better still (whilst we still have free speech) ask Bob Brown where this money is coming from as he seems to be in charge.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I don't know of that one, but there's one at Codrington (between Portland and Warrnambool), there was a big stink about putting them up at Bridgewater (mostly the residents and the noise that would be created). Logically that corner of Vic is the smartest place to put them, it's so bloody windy, you'd create enough power in a couple weeks to run the town for a six months or more! hah

I think it worked out that the turbine itself has the span of a boeing from wing tip to wing tip (or something like that).

Just not sure on how long lasting the produced energy is though. I don't know if it's a close range or long range thing...I know fairly recently in the UK it came to light that almost half of the applications for planning permits for wind turbines were rejected...

The thing is, there's so many different types of wind turbines...it's not funny...

http://www.energymatters.com.au/wind...nes-c-149.html

You've really got to ask yourself why these types of energies aren't being harnessed if reducing our carbon footprint is for the 'greater good'...

I'm sure the error of my knowledge will be pointed out soon enough...I can smell the stench of an inferior superiority complex on the horizon...

i think a lot of it is govco can see a windfall down the track with carbon tax, that is the only explanation i can think of , as someone earlier pointed out they have reduced contributions towards solar power which seems to be the wrong direction if we are to be looking at reducing pollution

[mik]

Originally Posted by z80

Just to clear the maths a bit....

40,000...this is pretax dollars as it is a deductible expense


4,000 GST claimed back immeidiately (so a total of $4k saved)

36,000 at 50% tax rebate= $18k outlayed.

The best part?

depreciation is on the purchase price before the rebate....so 20% of 40k is 8k depreciation in the first year...

18k out of pocket becomes 10k after only 12 months.

But in that 12 months also 4k saved on electricity.....so really only owed 6k balance.



2nd year...

depreciation is 20% of 32k or $6400...amount owed is zero....$400 positive


Now isn't that a nice set of numbers?

It would actually have been worthwhile borrowing the money.


Note...no solar rebate claimed or needed...so not robbing any pensioners.


But note 14k would have been lost in tax on the 40k anyway!

and this will be money in the bank mate as electricty bills keep on rising you will be way in front......and good luck to you.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by mik

i think a lot of it is govco can see a windfall down the track with carbon tax, that is the only explanation i can think of , as someone earlier pointed out they have reduced contributions towards solar power which seems to be the wrong direction if we are to be looking at reducing pollution

Exactly!

There is a lot of nonsensical stuff going on and I'm pretty sure most people who were undecided are now questioning exactly what benefit this kind of scheme will have....particularly when you're looking at possible taxes of up to $275 per tonne in 2050...

That's not social responsibility, it's highway robbery...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

In the interest of fairness...lets have a look at another...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226095570562

In the interests of fairness? I think you mean Murdoch

Originally Posted by Sezzy

And a little more...with regard to where the carbon price is estimated to end up...a treasury projection...

http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/

Looks like someone needs to read something from a fact basis: what's next are you going to quote Andrew Bolt and pass on some denialist spam?, perhaps turn off the truth filter on your search engine .

I wonder if you have even bothered reading up the basic science on climate change? can you explain why you reject it.....other than its all bs, govco conspiracy theories.

[SEZ213]

- 15 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today.
- 15 million years ago, the temperature was 3-5 degrees warmer than today…

What happened after this point of warming…?

Cooling…

In 1975, Scientists discussed global cooling and it’s effects on the world. Funnily enough, 36 years later, scientists are discussing global warming…using, can you guess…?

THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT for both global warming and global cooling…

The science surrounding it will never be won – you can’t prove your argument, it’s moot.

Because I was raised to ask questions if something didn’t sound right to me, I queried this fact, and went searching…

When someone announces that we need to ‘reduce our carbon footprint’, you immediately come to the conclusion that they talk about going green…well, not in our case it would appear.

They have reduced the price given for solar power going back into the grid,

They have reduced the rebate given for purchasing solar power

The greens have strategically rejected every concept regarding going green that has ever been suggested…Hydro…no way, Nuclear…no way.

Now you might be a little minion to what the government is suggesting, but it seems very contradictory to suggest we need to go greener but give no incentive…

Yes, I know, you don’t believe in incentives, we’re not children – well, unfortunately, it’s very clear to see (from an intelligent, business minded, economical viewpoint, and to a lesser extent scientific – after all, no one can agree wholeheartedly on anything can they…), that this is not going to reduce emissions or our carbon footprint.

It is very clear that this WILL, cause the lower echelons of society to be ‘compensated’ by the higher income earners, this WILL cause the higher income earners to be disadvantaged.

It WILL increase upwards to $275 p/tonne in 2050…

So if my electricity is going to increase $3.30 a week, and my gas (greener energy than coal) $1.50 a week…in the immediate foreseeable…when carbon is to be priced at $23p/tonne it’s a very STRONG indication that by time 2050 rolls around, and carbon is $275 p/tonne, then my electricity will have increased over $30 a week and my gas over $15 a week…
You might be prepared to pay for that, I know many that aren’t…

Because someone's views don’t fall into line with yours, it does not give you the right to suggest they're less intelligent than you, or make suggestions as you have.

The Australian actually gave a fair BALANCED article (what the AJA code of ethics actually requests of journalists), so whilst the SMH is fine for those who want to be devoid of any other type of information that can be supplied to them – well that’s fine too, the educated masses might think otherwise.

Memories are short. This was not Gillard's plan in the 2010 campaign (and this is not a reference to the carbon tax). In the campaign Gillard backed the principle of carbon pricing but she said wanted a political consensus before acting. How wise, in retrospect. Indeed, this was the advice Gillard gave Kevin Rudd earlier in the year asking him to back off his own scheme. She was consistent in the campaign but changed her mind post-election.

Why?

The answer lies in the September 1, 2010, formal alliance between Labor and the Greens, with paragraph 6.1 (a) saying Australia must price carbon and that a multi-party committee be established and resourced as a cabinet committee to pursue this goal.

– How is any of that untrue…it’s un-emotive and factual…or are you suggesting the the article is a lie?

I don’t like Andrew Bolt, and never have, even whilst studying for a communications degree in journalism…funny that…

You didn’t bother to read the Australian article, just like you didn’t bother to read the posts that anyone else raised that questioned why you’re right, and the majority of us are wrong.

The other article is based off a TREASURY PROJECTION…I guess that must be a lie too…which would indicate, that if something the treasury has suggested is a lie…then so is the carbon tax…

Sudzy, let’s get a few things VERY CLEAR…

1. I don’t need your permission to have an opinion on Carbon tax, or any other tax for that matter.
2. I don’t need your permission with regard to what I believe in, nor do the other forum members.

So whilst I’m very happy that you have your opinion, I don’t really care what it is…just don’t try to sway me to your side, because it won’t ever happen. Your ability to argue constructively is limited at best, something I have come to expect from you…as I suspect many others have…

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

- 15 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today.
- 15 million years ago, the temperature was 3-5 degrees warmer than today…

Yes indeed, the last time co2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago....does that tell you something of the signficance of what is happening? Man arrived 13million years later and this is the first time we have experienced co2 levels this high

Regardless how does that disprove the earth is now getting warmer from increased co2 released by man?

Originally Posted by Sezzy

In 1975, Scientists discussed global cooling and it’s effects on the world. Funnily enough, 36 years later, scientists are discussing global warming…using, can you guess…?

36 years later man is discussing global warming ......perhaps in the minds of people that only heard the words "carbon tax" and "big new tax" thrown about in the same sentence.

Yes, there was discussion and conjecture regarding cooling amongst some scientists- no consensus, yet the idea was debunked back then by the scientific community, that's what science is all about.

From:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103030031
In fact, there was nowhere near a scientific consensus about a global cooling in the 1970s. A 2008 literature review published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concluded that "[t]here was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age" and that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." The study further noted that "[w]hen the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage." And sure enough, in the video, Barrasso cited headlines from media coverage at the time rather than climate research.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT for both global warming and global cooling…

please tell us what argument they are using for both?, are you implying they were discussing that increasing co2 was used to predict cooling?

What makes you think I haven't read the two articles you have quoted? Am I meant to be critiquing them?

Both of them, same old, same old, ive already commented on the rhetoric and questions they bring up, why would I bother wasting everyone's time doing it again.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes indeed, the last time co2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago....does that tell you something of the signficance of what is happening? Man arrived 13million years later and this is the first time we have experienced co2 levels this high

it tells me the earth goes through cycles - what is it supposed to tell us. that the earth was so scared of man arriving in 13 million years time, that it reduced the co2 levels to prepare for man

Originally Posted by sudszy

Regardless how does that disprove the earth is now getting warmer from increased co2 released by man?

it doesn't, but the fact that levels are as high now does not prove that man made it that way

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it tells me the earth goes through cycles - what is it supposed to tell us. that the earth was so scared of man arriving in 13 million years time, that it reduced the co2 levels to prepare for man



it doesn't, but the fact that levels are as high now does not prove that man made it that way

there is absolutely no doubt not even from "esteemed" denialist scientists, not even Richard Lindzen, that the rise in co2 from preindustrial levels of 280ppm to the present 394 ppm level is due to man burning fossil fuels.

The evidence is in the lower level of c14 in the atmospheric co2.(the science of carbon dating(that's a scam too?)

Consistent with the carbon being very old.....ie fossils!

Further to that, if you examine all the available data, there has been no other time when the level of co2 has risen in such a short time without any obvious catastrophic event , i meteortie strike etc

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes indeed, the last time co2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago....does that tell you something of the signficance of what is happening? Man arrived 13million years later and this is the first time we have experienced co2 levels this high

Regardless how does that disprove the earth is now getting warmer from increased co2 released by man?

I could ask you how you can prove that anthropomorphic climate change is actually happening, but I really don't care...

Originally Posted by sudzy

36 years later man is discussing global warming ......perhaps in the minds of people that only heard the words "carbon tax" and "big new tax" thrown about in the same sentence.

Yes, there was discussion and conjecture regarding cooling amongst some scientists- no consensus, yet the idea was debunked back then by the scientific community, that's what science is all about.

So if this was debunked as you say, what's to say this hasn't begun to be debunked as well...? Don't bother answering...I still don't care...

Originally Posted by Sudzy

From:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103030031
In fact, there was nowhere near a scientific consensus about a global cooling in the 1970s. A 2008 literature review published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concluded that "[t]here was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age" and that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." The study further noted that "[w]hen the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage." And sure enough, in the video, Barrasso cited headlines from media coverage at the time rather than climate research.

There is still, nowhere near a scientific consensus today about climate change and warming...remember, that's why they couldn't call it global warming, because there wasn't any...???

Originally Posted by sudzy

please tell us what argument they are using for both?, are you implying they were discussing that increasing co2 was used to predict cooling?

You are the brain Sudzy, go find it yourself...

Originally Posted by Sudzy

What makes you think I haven't read the two articles you have quoted? Am I meant to be critiquing them?

Both of them, same old, same old, ive already commented on the rhetoric and questions they bring up, why would I bother wasting everyone's time doing it again.

You just proved you didn't read it...

Neither is attempting to disprove any science, just discussion around the TAX implementation...which is, after all, what this thread is about...remember??

And since you didn't seem to get to the bottom of the last bit of my post...I guess I'll say it again...

Sudzy, let’s get a few things VERY CLEAR…

1. I don’t need your permission to have an opinion on Carbon tax, or any other tax for that matter.
2. I don’t need your permission with regard to what I believe in, nor do the other forum members.

So whilst I’m very happy that you have your opinion, I don’t really care what it is…

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

There is still, nowhere near a scientific consensus today about climate change and warming...remember, that's why they couldn't call it global warming, because there wasn't any...???...

Yes, just another denialist myth you've run with:

The term climate change and global warming have both been used to describe what is happening. More lately climate change is used because there was a perception out there from the simple folks that increasing temperature would be good for them. Most not appreciating that with increased energy added to the atmosphere, climate events and patterns would.........change, and not necessarily in a favourable way.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You are the brain Sudzy, go find it yourself...

Just great, you come up with an absurd statement you can't find any evidence for and Im meant to waste time finding the denialist website you got it from?

One thing this does reinforce is why we dont have an election on this type of issue, there are just too many out there that have absolutely no idea and/or a false idea on the science to have an appreciation of the problem we are facing.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You just proved you didn't read it...

Neither is attempting to disprove any science, just discussion around the TAX implementation...which is, after all, what this thread is about...remember??...

said it was the same old, same old, same rhetoric....... about the TAX, politics and the science. which I have commented on all!

Originally Posted by Sezzy

And since you didn't seem to get to the bottom of the last bit of my post...I guess I'll say it again...

Im under obligation to comment on every thought that goes through your mind

[pottery beige]

ffs....

[Franco Cozzo]

How do they call an early election? I think enough people would be ****ed off enough to vote the other way.

[SEZ213]

I love being called a denialist...I think it really improves the quality of these threads...it's no freaking wonder they get closed all the time. When it doubt do it guys, highly recommend it, it seems to make your argument stick...apparently...

Damo, I reckon the only way is Double Dissolution, seems that even if there's a vote of no confidence, it will just mean another minority government (I hate politics so I'm not 100% sure), which would put Abbott in, but in pretty much the same situation as Gillard is now...and that's not what we want...the puppets behind them are the real problem...and the issues would still remain with just another scapegoat in the lead...

End of the day, the tax implementation is a bitter pill for some to try to swallow...particularly if you're getting the raw end of the deal...