Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!!

[BAxtER]

Originally Posted by Blue_XR

Sudszy, I have made my point clear I feel on this subject so I won't bother repeating myself on what I think of man made climate change. You also seem to be part of the ever decreasing minority on the subject. Have you had a look at the latest polls?

However, you are all for this new tax that will "supposedly" help rid Australia's Carbon footprint. This tax is nothing more that to get the government out of the mess it has created by sending us into debt. It will also be used as funding for the UN. The government has come out and said this will help all Australians. How about the millions, perhaps billions that will be sent overseas. Have a look at the following links:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...-poor-nations/

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=48646

There are many more articles on the subject. If this tax is to come in place, they have no right handing this money to the corrupt UN.

Thats right, many people on here and in Australia, dont get on a train, bus every morning packed in like sardines 5 days a week to have 30% of their money taken from them (more once a carbon tax comes) to be sent overseas to the UN.
Instead we want another westgate bridge, toll free roads, better infrastructure in public schools, better health insitutions. We dont want a carbon tax where money is sent overseas, we dont want money wasted on myki systems, war in afghanistan.
Is it too much to ask for?

[Charliewool]

Maybe someone should put up a poll with a few questions? (I have no idea how to do this)
Yes or No for each?
1/. Is climate change actually occurring?
2/. If yes, Is it caused through man-made Co2 emissions?
3/. If yes, Is it a natural cyclic process?
4/. Do you believe a carbon tax is correct?
5/. Do you believe a carbon tax will lower Co2 emission?
7/. Do you believe a carbon tax is good for our planet?
8/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on Australia's economy?
9/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on you personally?
10/. Do you believe that the government's intentions are a genuine attempt to help our planet?
11/. Do you believe that the carbon tax is purely a fund raising tax
12/. Should there be a referendum to decide on introducing a carbon tax?
13/. Should an early election be held to decide?

[mik]

in my opinion the main protest for the carbon tax is that it appears to be a lame duck that will do very little, and that it certainly might hurt industry and many people already doing it hard here,
and when many of the big polluting countries won`t do their part you can`t blame people for not wanting to go there when there are better ways of reducing our own energy pollution than using a regressive tax and no other possibly better avenues have even been contemplated.

[Polyal]

Im not into early elections myself, unless it gets really bad which I tell ya its getting that way.

#12...hell yes!

[Paxton]

My biggest problem with the Carbon Tax pushers, is that, if you are against the Carbon Tax (like myeslf, and the vast majority of people in this thread), then you are a climate change denier. I believe the climate is changing (it's friggin' cold in Sydney at the moment), but I don't want a Carbon tax to try and fix it.

I believe that, like the GST, this should go to the polls. If Gillard loses (as she deserves to do), then this is also a rejection of the carbon tax, and Bob Brown's scare campaigns. We won't see this issue face an election, mainly because Gillard knows she can't win. This Carbon Tax is to be her legacy, and nobody can stand in the way of that; if you do, you are a Climate Change Denier.

[Thornie]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Maybe someone should put up a poll with a few questions? (I have no idea how to do this)
Yes or No for each?
1/. Is climate change actually occurring?
2/. If yes, Is it caused through man-made Co2 emissions?
3/. If yes, Is it a natural cyclic process?
4/. Do you believe a carbon tax is correct?
5/. Do you believe a carbon tax will lower Co2 emission?
7/. Do you believe a carbon tax is good for our planet?
8/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on Australia's economy?
9/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on you personally?
10/. Do you believe that the government's intentions are a genuine attempt to help our planet?
11/. Do you believe that the carbon tax is purely a fund raising tax
12/. Should there be a referendum to decide on introducing a carbon tax?
13/. Should an early election be held to decide?

Looking at alot of the polls being run atm the government don't give 2 hoots on what the Australian public wants, majority are against this tax, also watching news this morning when i got home from work they were showing industrial smoke stacks, but they weren't billowing smoke they were billowing steam, way to misinform the public.

[distortion]

1/. Is climate change actually occurring? yes, but over hundreds of years
2/. If yes, Is it caused through man-made Co2 emissions? no
3/. If yes, Is it a natural cyclic process? absolutely!
4/. Do you believe a carbon tax is correct? An extra tax will just be passed onto consumers, and will not change anything... ie maccas raised their prices recently, did people stop eating maccas because its bad for them?
5/. Do you believe a carbon tax will lower Co2 emission? not a chance
7/. Do you believe a carbon tax is good for our planet? no
8/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on Australia's economy? yes. Australia's media (ie channel 7 and the age newspaper) should be held responsible for promoting climate change theory as fact when it is only a theory...
9/. Do you believe a carbon tax will have an adverse effect on you personally? yes.
10/. Do you believe that the government's intentions are a genuine attempt to help our planet? no. Bob Brown brought this tax by getting Julia into power. Labour would not be supporting this if they didnt owe the Greens 'one'.
11/. Do you believe that the carbon tax is purely a fund raising tax that and above...
12/. Should there be a referendum to decide on introducing a carbon tax? yes
13/. Should an early election be held to decide? yes but it wont, as Labour will lose in a landslide

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Im not into early elections myself, unless it gets really bad which I tell ya its getting that way.

#12...hell yes!

Oh you/we have gone through so many early elections haven't we, What is the point of our tax $$$$ spent on a Referemdum - spend once have a early excercusion and vote the donkey and mule out problem solved.

[Charliewool]

ooops left out 14
14/. Do you believe Sudszy is really Bob Brown?

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

ooops left out 14
14/. Do you believe Sudszy is really Bob Brown?

No because he's Harold Scruby, just look at his unscrupulous fear campaign on speeding.

[Grunter]

Wayne Swan says carbon tax is not a wealth wrecker but 'the next frontier' in economic reform


PRIVATE incomes will rise by 16 per cent over 10 years according to a Government counter attack on claims its proposed penalty for carbon pollution will be a wealth wrecker.

Forecast growth will deliver an $8000 boost to national income per person by 2020, and more than $30,000 (in today's dollars) by 2050.

The findings are among new research prepared by Treasury as the Government tries to fend off growing concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living.

The new Treasury modelling is based on a carbon tax starting at $20 per tonne of emissions, which is at the lower end of the range recommended by the Government's chief climate change adviser Ross Garnaut.

The carbon tax will only slice about a tenth of one percentage point off annual growth rates per person, according to the modelling.

Green energy sources are likely to grow as a result of the carbon price. And Treasury predicts renewable electricity generation to be 1700 per cent greater than today by 2050.

The Treasury calculations will be used today by Treasurer Wayne Swan in a bid to fight back against Opposition claims that carbon pricing would wreck industries and hurt household incomes.

And Mr Swan will also use a National Press Club speech on Tuesday to argue that pricing carbon was the next big economic reform.

"As Treasurer, I see a price on pollution as the next crucial frontier in economic reform," Mr Swan has said in an advance text of his speech.

"It is the type of progress that future generations will speak of in the same terms as the big reforms of the 80s and 90s.

"It is the most cost effective way to decouple economic growth from emissions growth, building a low-pollution economy by making dirty energy relatively more expensive and clean energy relatively cheaper."

He says the carbon tax will reap "big dividends for the country" and will rank alongside major reforms such as removing trade barriers and superannuation.

Mr Swan's speech is part of the Government's counter-attack against Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's warnings that the carbon tax will drive up prices and cost jobs.

A Galaxy poll reported in The Courier-Mail on Monday showed 58 per cent of voters opposed the carbon tax.

But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said a carbon tax would be the "lowest price and most efficient way" to tackle climate change.

Labor is finalising negotiations with the Greens and Independents over the design of the tax. The details are likely to be released "within weeks", Mr Combet said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/n...-1226070642217

Interesting.

16% income increase over 10 years, yet CPI will at the least increase by 20%+ over 10years if history is any indication.

Information conveniently left out is the 16% figure quoted by the treasure for the income are at the top of the range the Treasury reported. Would be good to know what the bottom of the range reported is.

In the article also...

The new Treasury modelling is based on a carbon tax starting at $20 per tonne of emissions, which is at the lower end of the range recommended by the Government's chief climate change adviser Ross Garnaut.

So again what happens to the numbers if the upper end of the range is used for emissions?! And they still cannot quote what the exact number per tonne is going to be.

It's no wonder the majority do not support this, when there is so much uncertainty and unknowns that are not being answered.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

No because he's Harold Scruby, just look at his unscrupulous fear campaign on speeding.

I always thought he was a self appointed road safety expert.
But it seams he is just Pro Government. He is only here to tell us that everything the government does is 100% correct and its for the good of the people.
He seams to love that the government raises revenue every way possible.
One can only assume his paycheck is from the government, so he is trying to support them to get as much money as they can, whether its through speed cameras, luxury car tax, carbon tax, or taxing people on the distance they drive and not the amount of fuel they use.

Sudszy. Is there anything the government does that you don't agree on?

[Grunter]

PM him to keep this on topic.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ltd

Hope your job doesn't rely on being accurate? 40%? try 3% is man made according to chicken little alarmist Professor Bob Carter (WHO IS IN THE DIRECT PAY OF BIG GOVERNMENT AT FLANNO'S CARBON INSTITUTE); .

Sorry you need to check facts, 40% of the co2 in the atmosphere has been put there by man burning fossil fuels.
Do the maths 280ppm CO2 100 years ago, now 392ppm today.

Dont know about where you went to school but thats a 40% increase by my arithmetic.

You really ought to be careful with the numbers some throw around. 3% is man's annual co2 output in comparison to the amount that goes in and out of the carbon cycle naturally. How much goes in and out of the natural cycle per year is hardly relevant, its been a balanced system for millions of years, there is no net increase of CO2 due to the earth just doing its stuff.
Unfortunately there is no extra capacity for earth to absorb the additional amount man throws into it each year, so the amount man adds each year accumulates, that's why we've got 40% more than a hundred years ago.

Bob Carter, I think you got that wrong too, he is not part of the Australian climate panel, whatever its called.......he couldnt be further removed from it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

But then I decided to look it up myself. I used all different sources and from what evidence I found, I changed my opinion that it is not man made.

So Ben, why keep this valuable evidence you have found to yourself, you have proof that the temps we are now experiencing are part of a natural process, let the world know....and everyone including me can get on with burning more fossils.

of course its just all bs, you know nothing.

[Reaper8]

all i can say is RONALD McDONALD for pm. He cant do any worse than the red headed clown we have now and hambergler for treasurer at least he wears the clothes of a thief.

[350125GO]

Carbon Tax will be going through, itd be worse for the government to pull out now than it would be to push through. It also will not be undone by the libs if they get in. Get used to it.

Unless the government collapses that is. Which is a fat chance.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Reaper8

all i can say is RONALD McDONALD for pm. He cant do any worse than the red headed clown we have now and hambergler for treasurer at least he wears the clothes of a thief.

Best post of the thread!

[Charliewool]

So come on Sudszy... Enlighten us with your field of expertise??
What is your profession?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry you need to check facts, 40% of the co2 in the atmosphere has been put there by man burning fossil fuels.
Do the maths 280ppm CO2 100 years ago, now 392ppm today.

Dont know about where you went to school but thats a 40% increase by my arithmetic.

You really ought to be careful with the numbers some throw around. 3% is man's annual co2 output in comparison to the amount that goes in and out of the carbon cycle naturally. How much goes in and out of the natural cycle per year is hardly relevant, its been a balanced system for millions of years, there is no net increase of CO2 due to the earth just doing its stuff.
Unfortunately there is no extra capacity for earth to absorb the additional amount man throws into it each year, so the amount man adds each year accumulates, that's why we've got 40% more than a hundred years ago.

Bob Carter, I think you got that wrong too, he is not part of the Australian climate panel, whatever its called.......he couldnt be further removed from it.

How many different ways are there to measure CO2 ppm?

What is the source of your information?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

How many different ways are there to measure CO2 ppm?

What is the source of your information?

Dont be daft, get on the internet and look up current co2 levels. Mauna Loa observatory and pre industrial times, if you find anything different to the numbers Ive quoted, let us all know.

There is no-one, (apart from people with the same mindset as your good self) that is disputing those numbers or their accuracy.

[mik]

Originally Posted by 350125GO

Carbon Tax will be going through, itd be worse for the government to pull out now than it would be to push through. It also will not be undone by the libs if they get in. Get used to it.

Unless the government collapses that is. Which is a fat chance.

i think you are right on all accounts, i see our only chance at perhaps getting shafted a bit less is to let the pollies know they will pay a severe penalty for giving us the shaft yet again, i hate to be cynical, but looking back on our track record......................... some will make some noise initially, but in the end like sheep most of the populas will just bend over and "cop it sweet".

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Dont be daft, get on the internet and look up current co2 levels. Mauna Loa observatory and pre industrial times, if you find anything different to the numbers Ive quoted, let us all know.

There is no-one, (apart from people with the same mindset as your good self) that is disputing those numbers or their accuracy.

I specifically want to know the source of your information regarding historical levels of CO2 ppm.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

I specifically want to know the source of your information regarding historical levels of CO2 ppm.

Yes, I measured them myself........ffs, if you have any other numbers that disagree with what Ive quoted, put em up, otherwise move on , Im not playing your silly games Mr Bolt/Mr Jones, which ever one you are.

[Auslandau]

100 years ago I am surprised they knew what Carbon was let alone measure it accurately. Wonder what it was 500 years ago ..... 1000 ..... 10,000 ..... 100,000 ..... just asking before I get yelled at!

[Fireblade]

Don't know how they come to this but is this what you asked for Auslandau, I don't agree with all they hype of climate change or the Tax, but prefer to sit on the bench with it though.

[Batman105E]

Originally Posted by cheap

I specifically want to know the source of your information regarding historical levels of CO2 ppm.

I just did a quick search of the interweb and found an interesting site that showed an even more interesting graph...

CO2 Levels in the atmosphere



Now the graph shows that CO2 levels have been a whole lot higher before now and they have reduced, and then increased again. Also note that these reductions and increases do not tie in with subsequent changes in the average temperature of the earth.

If the information shown in the graph is accurate you could conclude that rising and falling CO2 levels over millions of years do not correspond to increases and fall in the average temperature of the earth.

You could also assume that CO2 levels can change enormously without human influence.

In fact the graph shows that only two periods (carboniferous and quarternary) have CO2 levels been lower than 350ppm, all up about 200 million out of 600 million years... and that the Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Finally does anyone really think we can change the CO2 level in the atmosphere with a tax, and if so will it change the global average temperature??? I think not.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

100 years ago I am surprised they knew what Carbon was let alone measure it accurately. Wonder what it was 500 years ago ..... 1000 ..... 10,000 ..... 100,000 ..... just asking before I get yelled at!

Rather than ridicule it, look up how they measured co2 a hundred years ago and look up how those figures have been verified to be accurate today,

it would be pointless me telling you as you'd just say its bs, yada, yada... see if you can find out inside two weeks.

"assuming you know how to work a search engine", you seem very good at finding denialist points of view from people with mining interests, perhaps turn off the truth filter this time.

[landau460]

I read this before on this site concidering that it was consensus was how the global warming theory came about.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.


http://www.accessmymind.info/

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Batman105E

I just did a quick search of the interweb and found an interesting site that showed an even more interesting graph...

CO2 Levels in the atmosphere



Now the graph shows that CO2 levels have been a whole lot higher before now and they have reduced, and then increased again. Also note that these reductions and increases do not tie in with subsequent changes in the average temperature of the earth.

If the information shown in the graph is accurate you could conclude that rising and falling CO2 levels over millions of years do not correspond to increases and fall in the average temperature of the earth.

You could also assume that CO2 levels can change enormously without human influence.

In fact the graph shows that only two periods (carboniferous and quarternary) have CO2 levels been lower than 350ppm, all up about 200 million out of 600 million years... and that the Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Finally does anyone really think we can change the CO2 level in the atmosphere with a tax, and if so will it change the global average temperature??? I think not.

Good to see you do some research, but why be so selective, why dont you find out why the co2 levels were so high 200 million years ago and then have a look at what life existed on earth. What you havent grasped is that the earth as a body will survive no matter what, life and more importantly humkan life on it depends on the atmosphere and temperature.

Man has only been here in two legged form for the best part of two million years, in that time co2 levels have never been above the levels they are now, nor in the 13 million years before that.

The other feature that you will see that is omitted on that graph it isnt showing the last 100 years of co2 concentrations, the line would be going vertically upwards on that graph, a rate of increase never seen before on the planet!