The ETS (Extra Tax Scheme) has been DEFEATED

[|||]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Case study:

I'm in the Point of sales display industry, i had a brief from a client last week for a "green" display solution for their products, a counter unit for 120 stores, we looked at a number of alternatives and settled on hardwood machined and clear coated with an environmentally friendly water based clear system, it ticked all the boxes for green, recyclable and sustainable.. it ended up coming out at $450.00 per unit, i also costed the same unit from MDF with 2 pack paint finish as a reference and it came in at $220.00... The client nearly feinted.
That's real money, start forcing people to go this way and taxing them if they don't is going to hurt EVERY consumer.
Im all for reducing emissions and living "greener" but not at the expense of common sense and our way of life and cost of living.
A gradual awareness and adoption of "greener" habits is needed, not a sledge hammer taxation minefield.

i have the same issue on a daily basis with customers who want to buy australian made products. it sounds great in theory, but when dollars are on the line people always vote with their wallet and choose the cheaper import.

this ETS is a false economy. forcing people to pay extra for everyday items is not the way to save the planet.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by HEMI POWER

That is an interesting question but i highly doubt there will be any way out of it.Here in Vic on new houses being build we have to comply with a 5 star energy rating home,this is by means of installing a Solar Hotwater service or by fitting a rainwater tank.

You'll probably find it will be illegal to remove a water tank once its installed and it will attract a huge fine and repayment of the rebate...!

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You'll probably find it will be illegal to remove a water tank once its installed and it will attract a huge fine and repayment of the rebate...!

which would be silly, as 20 years ago councils fined people for having one. They saw it as being a dirty holder of water.... a neighbour as well as a friend both got in strife for having one and got caught.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by rodderz

which would be silly, as 20 years ago councils fined people for having one. They saw it as being a dirty holder of water.... a neighbour as well as a friend both got in strife for having one and got caught.

Yes very true.. but 20 years ago there were no speed cameras, V8's were "cool", if you got into a fight you got a black eye instead of getting stabbed, kids played outside instead of in front of a TV and gave their seat up for adults on public transport... Wow how things have changed....

[rodderz]

yup, you need a permit to get a permit these days, and get fined if you don't!

[rodderz]

Have a look at this rubbish, the propaganda these fools come up with to try to get everyone to sign this deal is astounding.

Koalas 'facing climate change extinction'

CLIMATE change threatens the survival of dozens of animals from the emperor penguin to koala bears, according to a report released today at the UN climate summit.


Rising sea levels, ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice are taking a heavy toll on species already struggling to cope with pollution and shrinking habitats, said the study from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an intergovernmental group.

"Humans are not the only ones whose fate is at stake here in Copenhagen - some of our favourite species are also taking the fall for our CO2 emissions,'' said Wendy Foden, an IUCN researcher and co-author of the study.

The report details how climate change undermines the viability of 10 species, including the leatherback turtle, the beluga whale, clownfish, the emperor penguin and salmon.

Australia's iconic koala faces malnutrition and ultimate starvation as the nutritional quality of eucalyptus leaves declines as CO2 levels increase, the report added.

Polar species are especially likely to be hard hit.

The ringed seal is being forced further north as sea ice it relies on for rearing its vulnerable pups retreats every decade.

The emperor penguin, remarkably adapted to thrive in harsh Antarctic conditions, faces similar problems.

Reduced ice cover makes it harder to mate and raise chicks, and has caused a sharp decline in the availability of krill, a major food source.

As once-frozen tundra gives way to forest, the common red fox has moved northward, where it preys on and competes with the far rarer Arctic fox.

If climate change were real to that extent, wouldnt you class it as natural selection? May sound harsh, but if we are just going through earth's natural cycles species have come and gone throughout time, it's evolution. Thats why those giant roo's and wombats aren't around, or dodo's. Something happened environment wise and they lost out with everything else and became extinct or evolved into something else.

[4Vman]

Ah yes, the "tug the heart strings animal survival story".. works every time..

[snappy]

Why don't they publish a article about the real endangered species the middle class citizen they will be most under threat if the deal gets done .

[MO]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Why don't they publish a article about the real endangered species the middle class citizen they will be most under threat if the deal gets done .

What, tell the truth about something...oh no,no,no,no we can't have that now can we!

[rodderz]

Al Gore had egg on his face today...lol

Shows what lengths they go to for the sake of pushing it through

AL Gore faced up to inconvenient truth of his own yesterday when it was revealed the former US Vice-President misquoted an eminent climate scientist's work to suggest that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

Mr Gore stated: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

But the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was citing has rubbished these claims, a report in The Times says.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was an estimate Dr Maslowksi used several years ago in conversation with Mr Gore.

This is the second embarrassing gaffe for Mr Gore in recent weeks. On December 4 Mr Gore was forced to cancel a 'golden handshake' speaking engagement at the conference in Copenhagen. Attendees were encouraged to part with $US1200 to meet the climate change spearhead and have their photograph taken with him.

Mr Gore's latest error came as hacked e-mails from a British University appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to bolster their argument that humans were responsible for global warming.

Mr Gore, who became an unlikely champion of the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, was roundly castigated for his speech by members of the climate science community.

Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said: "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic."

Others agreed, stating that even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is an extreme prediction. Most climate scientists agree a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely.

"Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, an ocean physics specialist at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, an associate research professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said his latest results projected that it would take six years for 80 per cent of the ice to melt, but he expected some to remain beyond 2020.

He added: "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore's office."

[rodderz]

Another little tidbit too. Shows just how much money is involved in carbon trading, before it even becomes world-wide

Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world. Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a “pollutant”, worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.

[Saraco]

Originally Posted by MO

I can see a lot of ppl that can, will start their own vegie patches c/w chooks even communal ones. Some will opt to go solar on power and maybe opt off the grid. Plus the rest of the flow on affects, oh another, home brew, watch the number of home stills for spirits go up.

The general flow on affect will decrease some provider companies profits which in turn will mean a hike in charges.

I reckon there has to be a lot more research/thought go into everything yet before anything set in concrete can be passed down. Just some food for thought guys.

Mate, he's gonna turn us into Romania downunder!? GEEZ!!

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by rodderz

Have a look at this rubbish, the propaganda these fools come up with to try to get everyone to sign this deal is astounding.


If climate change were real to that extent, wouldnt you class it as natural selection? May sound harsh, but if we are just going through earth's natural cycles species have come and gone throughout time, it's evolution. Thats why those giant roo's and wombats aren't around, or dodo's. Something happened environment wise and they lost out with everything else and became extinct or evolved into something else.

Eco systems are an extremely precarious balance. Have you been following the plight of the Honey Bee? Did you know Australia is the ONLY country to be free of a mite that is killing them? And that Honey bees are 100% crucial for humans growing food?

Point is, take one animal out of the chain, no matter how small, and the entire ecosystem is altered. Sometimes, irreparably.

If you don't understand how important ALL life forms are to OUR survival, then you need to watch this.
HONEY BEE BLUES

One last point, it's NOT natural selection if we wipe out other species! I'm not here to get nasty, but seriously!

[snappy]

One last point, it's NOT natural selection if we wipe out other species! I'm not here to get nasty, but seriously!

It still not proven we a causing climate change yet . So i fixed your sentence

One last point, it's NOT natural selection if we allegedly wipe out other species! I'm not here to get nasty, but seriously!

[Bucknaked]

Only way to truely show how against this is when the election is called, vote for the opposition. ETS along with the internet filtering should be used against the government to show just how much Australia is against it. And the opposition should go into a campaign to show just how expensive it will be, and all the ETS does is to prop up the coffers of the government. The planet is poluted. We can't reverse it. We only pay for it financially. Rudd can't see just how much this is going to destroy the average eage earner. It's ok for him. His wife is rich, and he gets looked after by the taxpayer. Time to take a stand and don't vote for KRudd. Because voting for him is just approval of the ETS. I'd like to see the biggest defeat in Australian political history.

[Cobra]

Anthropogenic Climate Change is about as likely to exist as a Koala Bear.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by snappy84

It still not proven we a causing climate change yet . So i fixed your sentence

Exactly, there is so much spin doctoring going on how can you take those reports and scientists seriously. What they say is determined by the lure of a dollar, whether it be paid for or the $$ grant carrot dangling in front of them if they come up with new claims.

We're all for the environment, but some people fail to see the very obvious agenda behind the agreement, using climate change as the excuse for it.

[SB076]

Its interesting reading some of the articles on Copehagen, how pollies around the world are arguing and that they havent made any progrress (by their own admission) From what I have read, the issues the world pollies are having dont involve the climate they are all based on money and who gets what.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by SB076

Its interesting reading some of the articles on Copehagen, how pollies around the world are arguing and that they havent made any progrress (by their own admission) From what I have read, the issues the world pollies are having dont involve the climate they are all based on money and who gets what.

Exactly, forget the climate change part, the debate and the conflict over it all is all about $$. Big countries get some, little countries get less, but the carbon traders and big banks get a massive slice. An industry that will make oil production and mining look like fish in an ocean.

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/environment...1219-l6r7.html

Libs 'vindicated' on ETS, claims Abbott
JOSH GORDON
December 20, 2009

THE failure of world leaders to strike a legally binding deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions ''entirely vindicates'' the Opposition's decision to reject the Government's emissions trading scheme, Tony Abbott claimed yesterday.

As Australian environmental and business groups last night urged governments to commit to fresh talks early next year, the Opposition Leader said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been wrong to ''rush Australia into an ill-considered and premature emissions tax''.

''Pretty obviously the best way to go is direct action to tackle climate change rather than a great big tax that will hurt our exporters without actually doing anything to help the environment,'' Mr Abbott said.

The deal announced by US President Barack Obama to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees celsius - but with no binding targets - was widely criticised by Australian environmental groups for being superficial and disappointingly weak.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the summit had turned into a ''train wreck par excellence''. But he warned that the apparent impasse should not be used by Mr Abbott and others as an excuse for inaction in Australia.

''It's absolutely bone-headed to use this as an excuse to delay in getting on with the job modernising our very inefficient and carbon-intensive economy,'' Mr Connor told The Sunday Age from Copenhagen.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said it appeared the ''agreement of sorts'' would maintain the momentum for action in talks next year. But she said it was now obvious that Australia should adopt the smaller of three possible targets being discussed, a cut of just 5 per cent. ''One of the things that is pretty clear is that it will be hard for our Government to go beyond that 5 per cent. All of the conditions required to go further haven't been currently met.''

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a vocal sceptic about the human contribution to warming, said he was not surprised the talks had failed and said it was fanciful to think temperature increases could be limited.

''To talk about 2 degrees is viewing the planet like the thermostat on the central heating,'' Professor Plimer said.

''Climate is extraordinarily complicated and we humans are blessed with such an air of arrogance and ego, we actually think we can change climate.''

The real game should be improving conditions for the world's poor. ''The amount of money spent on this Copenhagen conference would have been enough to provide electricity and water for a small African nation,'' he said.

But Monash University climate-change expert Professor Neville Nicholls said there had been rising nervousness among the scientific community about climate change in recent years.

He said attempting to limit any temperature increases to 2 degrees would be a good start, although a 1.5 per cent target would be much better.

''If we don't come up with something really soon to actually start cutting emissions, emissions will grow exponentially and then we are just in so much trouble. There is no way the world could get warming of say 4 or 5 degrees without catastrophe.''

The Australian Greens said the Government must now commit to a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 - well in excess of the maximum 25 per cent target that would apply if a binding global deal had been struck.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said the non-binding pact to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees would not even be met by the targets. She blamed developed countries for demanding compromises from developing countries but offering none themselves, saying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should be held personally responsible for ''trying to bully those who wanted a real deal into accepting his greenwash''.

Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said the deal was disappointingly weak and fell well short of a treaty needed to avoid dangerous climate change. He said it was clear many world leaders were already acting independently.

''Australia is at risk of being left behind,'' Dr Henry said.

''We urgently need a comprehensive set of national climate laws.''

[Auslandau]

Least this bloke makes a bit of sense .....

''To talk about 2 degrees is viewing the planet like the thermostat on the central heating,'' Professor Plimer said.

''Climate is extraordinarily complicated and we humans are blessed with such an air of arrogance and ego, we actually think we can change climate.''

| [/url] |

[CSV_LS1]

An interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV-34...layer_embedded

[Barry_v]

if you want a good laugh have a look at this old 'yes minister' scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4EdtiqSm_4

australian copenhagen delegation anyone?

[mr_xr8]

http://img23.imageshack.us/i/motivat...b445b38dc.jpg/

[Romulus]

Hahaha!

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/business/ru...0427-tp29.html

Rudd delays carbon scheme until 2012
April 27, 2010 - 2:21PM

Kevin Rudd has blamed an opposition backflip and slow progress of global action on climate change for the delay of the federal government's carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS).

But the prime minister says the government is still committed to meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Mr Rudd on Tuesday said the government would now wait until the end of 2012, when the current Kyoto commitment period ends, before implementing the CPRS.

''The opposition decided to backflip on its historical commitment to bring in a CPRS and there has been slow progress in the realisation of global action on climate change,'' he told reporters in Sydney.

Mr Rudd said that by the end of 2012, governments around the world would be required to make clear their commitment.

''That will provide the Australian government at the time with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change,'' he said.

However, Mr Rudd said, the government's targets on greenhouse gas emission reductions remained unchanged.

''Climate change remains a fundamental economic environmental and moral challenge for all Australians and for all people of the world,'' he said.

Mr Rudd said the alternative was Mr Abbott's policy, which would cost more, does less and had not been funded.

Senate block

The decision bows to the political reality that a hostile Senate, where the government is seven votes short of a majority, is refusing to pass the scheme. It has been rejected twice and a third rebuff is expected in weeks.

The promise of an emissions scheme helped propel Rudd to power in 2007 but public support has slipped, with another election due this year. A delay could also slash up to $2.5 billion from the 2010/11 budget, according to government data.

Rudd, who leads in opinion polls, said the government would wait until the expiry of the Kyoto pact in 2012 before pushing on with plans for one of the world's most comprehensive regimes.

"That will provide the Australian government at the time with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change," Rudd told journalists in Sydney.

Newspapers, citing unsourced reports, said the saving of promised business and household compensation for the scheme would be reflected in the May 11 national budget, although ministers would not confirm this directly.

"The blocking of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation by the opposition has caused delays and created uncertainties which will of course affect the budget treatment of the CPRS," Climate Change Minister Penny Wong's spokeswoman said.

Rudd's government had planned to cut Australia's carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, forcing 1,000 large company emitters to buy permits to pollute from July 2011.

But after industry opposition the plan funnelled compensation to energy and trade-exposed industries such as AGL Energy, BlueScope steel and OneSteel.

Power market sparks up

One stock trader said the delay in carbon reforms had been discounted in the equities market, but confirmation stirred the Australian electricity market, where trade in 2012 power contracts showed some rare signs of life on Tuesday.

Under the reforms, full trading of emission permits was to have begun in 2012, but uncertainty over whether this would actually happen meant very few traders dared to move contracts for that year. That uncertainty appeared to fade as markets digested news there would be no trade in 2012, sparking a fall in prices.

Labor Party will now take its carbon plan off the table, with the scheme to start in 2013 at the earliest.

Conservative opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said delaying the scheme made a mockery of Rudd's pledge that climate change was the "great moral and economic challenge of our time".

Hockey said the scheme had been shelved to improve the budget outlook, helping deliver a promised return to surplus earlier than official forecasts of 2015/16 and improve the forecast $57.7 billion deficit for the year to end-June 2010.

"Postponing the scheme allows the government to remove the revenue from the sale of carbon permits of $28 billion over four years, and assistance measures of $30.5 billion, from the budget forward estimates," Hockey said.

The Australian Greens, who control five of seven Senate crossbench votes the government needs to pass legislation, said the decision to abandon the emissions scheme meant the government should look at interim alternatives like a levy on polluters.

"In the face of ever-stronger warnings from scientists, the government must not throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon any plans to put a price on carbon," Greens Deputy Leader Christine Milne said.

A new survey conducted by Auspoll for the Climate Institute and the Conservation Foundation found voter concern about global warming had slipped 9 percentage points since May 2009 but was still strong at 68 per cent, with climate still an election issue.

Just 36 per cent of voters believed Rudd was the best person to handle climate issues, a fall of 10 per cent from February last year, while 40 per cent said there was no difference between the government and the conservative opposition.

AAP, Reuters

[ltd]

That's a predictable outcome, and it's also off the forefront in US politics too.
Prepare for an election soon if they are doing the housework now.

[rodderz]

hahaha what a backflip, and he's blaming it on Abbott?

There's only 1 reason why he's backed off the ETS for the moment- it's because everyone has realised it's a crock of crap and it will cost him the election. It would of done nothing for the good of the environment, particularly when big businesses were getting subsidies or extra carbon credits for implementing a so called "green" program to their manufacturing, when all it really did was provide more money to expand their production and more pollution.

[Bearman]

Originally Posted by rodderz

hahaha what a backflip, and he's blaming it on Abbott?

There's only 1 reason why he's backed off the ETS for the moment- it's because everyone has realised it's a crock of crap and it will cost him the election. It would of done nothing for the good of the environment, particularly when big businesses were getting subsidies or extra carbon credits for implementing a so called "green" program to their manufacturing, when all it really did was provide more money to expand their production and more pollution.

Yep!! The election campaign has begun. Here we go.....

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by rodderz

hahaha what a backflip, and he's blaming it on Abbott?

There's only 1 reason why he's backed off the ETS for the moment- it's because everyone has realised it's a crock of crap and it will cost him the election. It would of done nothing for the good of the environment, particularly when big businesses were getting subsidies or extra carbon credits for implementing a so called "green" program to their manufacturing, when all it really did was provide more money to expand their production and more pollution.

Spot on!