Tony Abbott wants change that will work, he says.
Readiness to make tough decisions is one of the signs of a good government but just because a decision is tough doesn’t mean it’s right. Families Minister Jenny Macklin plugged the government’s carbon tax on Mamamia last week as the “right thing to do for our children”.
I have kids too (three gorgeous girls aged 22, 20 and 18) and I want the best for them and for their children. I’m all in favour of taking action to protect the environment and to combat climate change but it has to be sensible action that works, not massive change that will make a lot of other things worse.
As a minister, I was responsible for establishing the Green Corps, a government programme that gave young people six month environmental traineeships harvesting seeds, planting trees and dealing with exotic weeds and introduced animals. One of the key policies that the Coalition took to last year’s election was to create a standing Green Army, 15,000 strong, to supplement the land care work of farmers, volunteers and local councils.
My argument with the government is not over the need to tackle climate change but over the way to tackle it. Both the government and the opposition accept that Australia should reduce our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020. The government wants to do this by making fuel and electricity more expensive in a bid to make renewable power and electric cars more attractive. The Coalition wants to reduce emissions by planting more trees, boosting the carbon content of soil and using smart technology to turn power station emissions from a waste product into something valuable like fast growing algae for stock feed and bio-diesel.
Much of this is already happening. Most people don’t know that Australia has reduced its emissions intensity by nearly 50 per cent over the past 15 years through common sense measures to recycle and use energy more efficiently. The Coalition wants to encourage more of this by establishing a new fund, about $1 billion a year, to help pay for the most cost-effective proposals for reducing emissions via a tender process.
This means more money for farmers with the best environmental practices and for environmental innovators. What’s more, the money will all be spent in Australia, not sent offshore to foreign carbon farmers in countries where environmental standards may not be well policed. Farmers are already changing from chemical to organic farming practices because that makes economic sense, so relatively modest payments should help to realise the emissions reductions from soil carbon that Professor Garnaut flagged in his first report.
The Coalition’s policy means building on the good work that’s already being done. The government’s means a new tax, a new source of revenue for government, a massive new green bureaucracy and more politically targeted handouts. And for what? Even on the government’s own figures, with a carbon tax, Australia’s emissions still rise from 578 million tonnes a year now to 621 million tonnes in 2020. We only achieve our emissions reductions target through purchasing $3.5 billion in overseas carbon credits.
The government’s policy won’t work and it isn’t fair. Families’ struggle to make ends meet has grown much harder since December 2007 and a carbon tax will make it worse. Over the past three years, power prices have risen 51 per cent, gas is up 30 per cent, water up 46 per cent, health costs are up 20 per cent, education costs up 24 per cent, rent is up 20 per cent and fruit and vegetables are up 27 per cent. Since the middle of 2009, the average mortgage repayment is up by $500 a month.
Even on the government’s own figures, more than three million households will be worse off. Single income families with a child are worse off from below average weekly earnings. Families that are far from rich such as a school teacher and a shop assistant or a police officer and a part-time nurse are all worse off under the government’s own figures.
On the government’s own figures, families in the same financial position have different outcomes because of the way compensation is structured. For instance, if one partner earns $60,000 and the other earns $50,000 and they have a four year old son, they will receive $606 in compensation. If one partner earns $78,000 a year and the other earns $32,000 a year and they have a four year old son, the family will receive just $393 in compensation. If one partner earns $110,000 and the other has no income and they have a four year old son, they will receive only $372 in compensation. How is this fair given that relatively few families with a four year old will have both partners working full time?
.
The government’s modelling assumes that other countries take similar action to price carbon from 2016. Household compensation has been modelled at $23 a tonne but other parts of the package have been modelled at $20 a tonne and parts of it haven’t been modelled at all. The government says that power prices will rise 10 per cent but the NSW Treasury says that they will rise 20 per cent. The government says that household expenses will rise by $515 a year on average but the Master Builders Association says that the price of a modest new home will rise by $5000 and that this alone will add $480 a year to mortgage repayments.
The compensation that the government has promised families will be funded by revenue from selling carbon permits. After 2015, these permits can be purchased from abroad. Australian business will still have to achieve reductions and will still pass the increased costs onto consumers but the more credits they purchase from overseas the less revenue the Australian government will have in order to continue to fund compensation. This is one of the many questions that the Prime Minister has failed to answer this week.
Even on the government’s own figures, on average, households will pay $9-90 a week more under a carbon tax and receive $10-10 in compensation. This is a very thin margin for error from a government that doesn’t have a good record at getting things right.
With the Australian economy patchy and the international economic situation uncertain at best, this is the last time to be clobbering households with a new tax and hitting our economy with a structural upheaval. At the very least, the Prime Minister should seek a clear popular mandate for her new tax before trying to introduce it.
Promising before an election that “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” but doing the opposite afterwards has badly damaged respect for the government and the Prime Minister’s authority. Only a credible government can successfully manage a very big and complex change that requires the public to take much on trust. That’s hardly what we have now.
What do you think, is Mr Abbott on the right track? Or has he lost you?
Comments
498 Comments so far
Pingback: Say Yes | Top 6 Climate Myths Busted on Mamamia
How can a tax, administered by an incompetent Labor government, who have botched so many other projects, be trusted by Australians? This is the climate we are talking about here. Do you really believe that by Labor imposing an arbitrary tax on those they consider to be ‘polluters’, that there will be any net affect on the climate?
This tax won’t affect the global climate, it certainly won’t affect the climate in Australia, yet the economic ramifications are dire. Rather than create ‘green jobs’, which it purports to do, it will at first exacerbate unemployment by eradicating existing jobs in the coal and manufacturing industries.
Proof of this is in the track record of countries who have gone down this path before. Spain, France and Germany. France is now running almost entirely on nuclear power. Germany couldn’t run on green power, they are now re-opening coal-fired power stations at a rate of knots. Spain on the other hand is reaping the rewards of instigating a ‘green program’. For every green job they have created, they have lost three real jobs. Their unemployment level is up to 20%.
Is this the scenario you want for Australia?
When a lame duck prime minister said she would not introduce a carbon tax, then supplicated to the Greens’ demands and introduced a carbon tax, one has to wonder who is driving the bus here. Is it Labor or Bob Brown? This should be of concern to all Australians.
Bob Browns’s Greens managed less than 10% of the vote at the last election, yet he has contrived to force a useless, yet damaging carbon tax into parliament based on his bizarre minority views.
loading...
There are only four options as far as I can see…
1) Do nothing and nothing happens
2) Do nothing and the world as we know it changes for the worse
3) Do something (spend money like with a C Tax) and nothing happens besides cleaner air and water…
4) Do something (spend the money as in 3) and we save the world as we know it…
If you look at these 4 options, the worst case is we spend money and get cleaner air, water etc… the best case is we save the world….
If we can spend billions on war then spending money on getting cleaner air and water doesn’t seem like a bad thing at all….
just saying…
loading...
Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm
The guy needs to get his story straight. My stance is that Tony is far better than Julia at this stage, but we need to get some consensus. Without the Greens, hopefully, otherwise there will be nothing left to debate.
loading...
I’m enjoying watching this self immolation by Gillard Labor to the Greens God of ‘a sustainable future’. Unfortunately, under a Greens policy it won’t all be windmills and solar panels delivering ‘clean, renewable energy’ to our nation, it will be a ramshackle, hobbled economy struggling to compete with other nations on the world stage.
The Gillard government inherited a fine, robust economy able to withstand the GFC, no thanks to Kevin Rudd, who merely dipped into the honeypot and handed out milky bars, and as a result Labor are forgetting where the largesse came from.
Unfortunately, for Gillard, that honeypot is no longer so sweet. She is already deeply entrenched in a deficit thanks to the myriad bungled schemes so far instigated by Labor. But wait, there’s more. The NBN has yet be factored into the equation. Projected costs to the user have now come to light, and they’re not pretty.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/nbn-retail-price-revealed-up-to-18995month-20110721-1hqbn.html#poll
Based on today’s rates, we will pay more for a reduced internet service.
This on top of increased prices for everything. Don’t be fooled by Gillard’s $9.90 price tag for the carbon tax, it will apply across the board, as the GST did, yet unlike the GST, it won’t replace any taxes, it will be a whole big new tax. A whole big new tax that won’t affect the climate in any way, and will only drive the ‘large polluters’ off-shore.
Remember also that Gillard’s policy includes the proviso that half of the carbon emissions can be offset by selling them to spurious multi-national companies based in Nigeria or other third world countries.
This so-called carbon tax is fraught with danger, it is not only a recipe for corruption, it is a huge impost on the average working Australian. They simply don’t need this interference in their lives because of a supposed climate scare.
Most people didn’t vote for the Greens, yet the Greens are now driving national policy. Joolia needs to re-examine the reason she was voted in as leader of the Labor Party. It certainly wasn’t to appease the Greens at every stance, something she is very good at.
Perhaps she could lead rather than follow. Ditch the carbon tax, remember Labor’s core values and respect the economy of the country rather than spending like a drunken sailor.
loading...
Actually, the Internode pricing reveals that you’ll pay the same number of dollars per month for a vastly improved transfer rate.
loading...
It seems whichever way you look in Australian Politics today there is consensus that we need to reduce Carbon Dioxide (which the government calls) Carbon Pollution.
So Dear friends, should the thinkable occur and Julia Gillard be thrown down as Kevin Rudd was – and (whoopee) an election be called, who would you vote for?
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/looking-for-a-new-backbone/
loading...
Once you quoted News Busters on your blogI knew that your entire argument held no scientific credibility.
loading...
The carbon price and associated tax reform is going to go in.
In 1985 the Liberals said they’d dismantle Medicare – they couldn’t
In 1996 the Liberals said they’d dismantle compulsary super – they couldn’t
In 1999 Labor said they’d dismantle the GST – they couldn’t
Now Tony reckons he’ll dismantle the carbon tax. Does Tony have the guts to reduce the tax free threshold from the new 18K down to 6K again? I doubt it.
Which means he plans to cut how much money the government collects (i.e. less revenue) and then spend $10 billion dollars attempting to ‘pick the winner’ in green technology (something governments SUCK at).
Greece, anyone?
loading...
Via heathenscripture 14/07/11 –(http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/)
Three days on from Julia Gillard’s policy announcement, and the most striking characteristic of the carbon tax debate is just how closely it resembles a dozen retards trying to fuck a doorknob. The only apparent solution is a massive airdop of Xanax into our reservoirs, because really, everyone needs a few deep breaths and a spell in the quiet corner.
Sure, the weeks leading up have all been hysteria: Tony Abbott marching that bulldog grimace up and down the length of the country, like a Cassandra made of old leather and stunted dreams, cawing grim warnings of imminent ruin and destruction at the gates of Troy. But you might have expected, once the details had been released, there would arrive a little more perspective.
Nothing doing.
Far from being objective carriers of information, media outlets have been trying to manufacture furore. “Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax,” warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. “Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living.”
$9.90.
Cry me the motherfucking Nile.
Households on less than that income would be even less affected. Those in the upper range would have their ten bucks a week at least partly compensated, while others would be fully or over-compensated.
The tax, after all, was not on people, but on 500 high-polluting companies. The compensation was to guard against costs those companies might pass on to their customers.
So, no big deal, I said to myself when the details were announced. Surely this’ll all blow over. And then, found myself more than a little surprised when a Herald-Sun commenter (one step above YouTube on the food-chain, I’ll admit) said “Somebody needs to assassinate Julia Gillard NOW before she totally destroys our way of life.”
Just… hold up a minute. Ten bucks a week? Our way of life? Aside from incitement to murder a head of government being ever so slightly illegal (and something the Hun mods should probably have picked up on), the response just doesn’t make any sense. Here is legislation that might make some things marginally more expensive. Probably not much. It isn’t going to drive industries offshore, because things like power generation and mining Australian resources kind of have to be done in Australia.
And yet the hysteria, even when not reaching Lee Harvey Oswald levels, has been constant throughout, led by the paper who defines ten bucks a week out of a hundred grand as “feeling the pain”.
“Social demographer David Chalke said the tax threatened values at the core of Australian society. ‘To an extent it will make people question, “is it really worth the bother?” They’ll smell in this something of a class war,’ Mr Chalke said.”
Ten bucks a week. Core values. Class war. Then, “Generous payments to those on low incomes and higher taxes for high income earners would anger hard-working Aussies.” Because, people on less than $110,000 don’t have to work hard. That’s why they get paid less! Scrubbing toilets is easy and only takes five minutes, while high-level boardroom execs spend 20-hour days chained to some kind of awful lunch machine being beaten with lobster foam.
I also enjoyed “On 3AW yesterday, Treasurer Wayne Swan was unable to say how the carbon tax would affect a Falcon. He also couldn’t say what the price change for a can of tomatoes would be.” The random grocery quiz had undone the Treasurer yet again. “Wait, wait, wait, got one…uh… large box of Libra Fleur? Nope. Uh, Sara Lee Chocolate Bavarian? Hah, you got nothin’, Swanny!”
Then there were the numerous headlines about airfares set to “soar” (geddit!). Well-meaning travellers were interviewed saying higher airfares would make it much harder to afford family holidays. Tres sad, especially when Qantas “said it would need to fully pass on the carbon price to customers, with the price of a single domestic flight ticket to increase on average by about $3.50.”
Three dollars. Fifty cents. They currently charge you more than that for a bottle of water. They charge $7.50 to buy a ticket online, $8 for a cup of noodles, $25 to use their check-in counter, and $6 to board the plane first. The best comment left after that article was, “So people won’t be able to buy a newspaper for the boarding lounge anymore? Good.”
So let’s never hear any talk of ABC bias ever again, because the Sun has well and truly picked its horse on this one. Any online article on the tax was headlined by a video of the lovely Andrew Bolt, telling us it was “the greatest act of national suicide we’ve ever seen.” Funny, I thought that was when they gave him a TV show. There was also a great line about “so-called solar energy” – because now solar energy is just a theory too. Like gravity, or Adelaide.
I am a sometime journalist. In that sense, the staff in the Herald and Weekly Times building are my colleagues. This makes me feel a bit like whorehouse linen. No doubt they all say they’re just doing their jobs, looking for opportunities. Nonetheless, they’re still actively promoting harm for the sake of attracting an audience. Concentration camp guards are just doing their jobs, too.
And with that level of reporting, the effort from their readers is no surprise. “Co2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for life on Earth. Without it, trees will die,” said John. Get that man on the climate panel.
“How much will Australia’s temperatures decline once the tax is implemented?” asked Marty. Well, Marty, the atmosphere takes notes about where its constituent particles come from, so we’ll get a full report from the Hole in the Ozone Layer each quarter. He wears a jaunty hat, and gives every boy and girl a delicious melanoma.
The dumbshititis was also evident in the audience of the Prime Ministerial Q and A on Monday, where the average question could be summarised as, “I’m a person, and I don’t like paying money. Can I not ever pay money for things?” My favourite line, from a surgical swab of a man towards the end of the show, was that because he earned too much to be eligible for low-income handouts, “I feel I’ll be taxed into poverty.”
This taps into a very prominent feature of our political landscape: the constant line from Tony Abbott that Australian families are hurting, that Aussies are doing it tough, that life is somehow getting harder, that the cost of living is on the rise.
Shenanigans, Tony. Let’s get one thing very clear. Australians, en masse, are enjoying a better standard of living than has ever been enjoyed in this country’s history.
And not just marginally, but by a huge degree. Really, along with a few other developed countries, we are enjoying a better standard of living than any group of people has in human existence. We have every kind of food and beverage from around the world deliverable to our doors. We have technological advances that make a decade ago look archaic. We have goods and luxuries of every conceivable kind; cheap and accessible. We have more and better options with transport, entertainment, comfort, place and style of residence. We have the most advanced medicine and best life expectancy of all time.
While there is still poverty in Australia, it does not even touch the kinds of poverty experienced in most countries on earth. Support systems and sufficient wealth exist to cover at least basic needs. The small proportion of genuinely homeless usually have other factors that keep them away from those systems. Being poor in Australia means living in a crappy house, in a crappy area. Maybe a commission flat. It means living on welfare, getting by week to week, not having any money for nice things. It might mean the kids have to go to their friend’s house to play X-Box, or that they don’t get sweet Christmas presents. It sucks, but it’s safe. It’s solid. It keeps you alive. It’s a level of stability and security that half the world would kill for, and even the basic amenities of a commission flat are amenities that half the world doesn’t have.
Poor people in Australia do not starve to death. They don’t die of cold. There is clean water running in any public bathroom. If they’re ill, they can walk into a hospital and be treated. If they’re broke, they can get welfare. They can get roofs over their heads, even if they’re temporary. They have options. If the utilities are shut off, they can find a tap, or a powerpoint. They can make it through the night.
And those poor aside, the rest of the country is doing very fucking nicely indeed, thanks very much. Reading these stories of parents bitching about working long hours to afford their private school fees just makes me want to give their little tow-headed spawn a spew bath. The lack of perspective is astonishing. Their kids are safe and fed and healthy and getting every opportunity to do whatever they want with their lives. They’re not getting sent out to suck tourist dick for enough US dollars to get their siblings through the week.
It should make us ashamed that there are people with good earnings ready to claim victim status on national television over a worst-case scenario of five hundred bucks a year. This is what is driving people into a panicky rage. Five hundred dollars, if you can afford it. Less if you can’t. If you run a red light camera in Victoria it’s $300. Do 40 ks over the limit, $510. If we get fines, we bitch about it, but inherently accept the rationale: the fine is levied as a penalty by someone endangering others in the society. It’s the basic structure of how a society works. We all agree to abide by certain rules as a form of insurance, to make sure that we’re not on the receiving end of the negative consequences of lawlessness. When people refuse to abide by those rules, they’re variously censured by or removed from that society.
If we obtain energy by burning irreplaceable fuel, and the consequences threaten the safety of our society, then surely we should pay a penalty for that (adding to a fund to guard against those consequences). The rule is basic: you make the mess, you clean it up. Ten bucks a week is a sweet deal.
But in being part of the luckiest couple of generations of people to yet walk the earth, most of us still like to imagine we’ve got it tough. It’s that same sense of entitlement that I was discussing regarding Raquel a couple of weeks ago. When you grow up with a certain standard of living, you come to regard it as the natural state of affairs. If someone threatens that state, they are depriving you of what is fundamentally yours. To your mind, you have a right to live like this, purely because you’re lucky enough to have lived like this.
Well, you don’t. So if you claim you can’t afford ten bucks a week, I call Shenanigans, with a healthy dash of You’re a Dick. One dinner at the Flower Drum would make up your year’s liability in one hit. Genuinely struggling people will get compo anyway. But even they could afford it if they had to. Buy one less deck of Holiday 50s a week. Buy two less beers. Leave off the Foxtel subscription. Wear a franger, save half a mil. What the fuck ever. Remember that you live in a country where drinkable water comes out of a tap inside your goddamn house, and where the power runs 24 hours a day. This in itself is a goddamn privilege, and if you are going to bitch and moan about having to pay for that privilege, you can fuck off and die in a ditch.
Because you do not have a right to this way of life. No-one does. We just have the extreme good fortune of enjoying it, and that won’t last forever. We should appreciate it while we can.
Perversely, part of me wants to see what would happen if the sea levels rise a couple of metres, the coastal cities get swamped, the rainfall dries up, the power goes out, the militias take to the streets. Part of me would love to see these squawking indignant right-to-luxury dickwipes learning how to live in the dust, scraping out dried plants from the earth and hoarding their remnants from the Beforetime. It’ll be a sight if it happens. Dirty red skies will rise up from the ground each morning like a curse. The only creatures that seem to thrive, the cockroaches and carrion birds, will swarm black against the sand and the sunset, rasping dry songs with their throats and with their legs. The water will be gone. The world will not remember ice floes. And for her sins, for ten dollars a week from each and every one of us, Julia Gillard will hang from the garret at the gates of Troy.
loading...
Firstly let me start by saying I’m still undecided in the whole global warming thing. I’m still trying to be as objective as possible, but it is becoming harder and harder to filter out the zealots and fanatics on both sides of the argument(s). Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step back and have a good hard look at where all this is heading. Blind faith is not a particularly heathy thing!
The carbon tax as proposed by our government will have ZERO effect on emissions for one simple reason – how are people’s habits going to change if you give them the cash back? It is the financial pain in the endusers pocket that makes the difference with this type of solution. Big Business generally is not going to change and is just going to pass it on to the consumer (I know my company will and we have already talked about it!). Some other companies will move off shore and continue to emit the same amount of CO2. (The steel industry is hanging by a thread already. They will be the first to go and sooner than you might think! Aluminium will follow.)
Has making cigarettes more expensive via increased taxes stopped people from smoking? Probably just a little, but exposing the consequences (like death) has had more impact. Should we give smokers financial support to off-set the financial burden of the increased tax? What a stupid idea! What impact would banning cigarettes (or regulating the number of smokes you could buy per week) have on the number of smokers and the rate of disease? A lot!
If I was PM and the world was about to end (as many would have us “believe”), I would have targeted regulation TOMORROW, not be fiddling with some Ponzi taxation scheme to take money off us and then give it back!!?? So is there a problem or not??
The only practical and effective way forward on reducing carbon emissions is through regulation. Taxation and trading will ultimately just become one big money pit/redistribution system.
Let’s not even begin to discuss the rorts that are going to develop worldwide around these taxes and trading schemes. More than half of the governments on the planet are corrupt dictatorships looking for money making opportunities like this. How much of our new tax will be spent on buying offsets from nice friendly Eastern European or African nations?
loading...
“The carbon tax as proposed by our government will have ZERO effect on emissions for one simple reason – how are people’s habits going to change if you give them the cash back?”
It is not aimed at reducing consumer emissions, it’s aimed at changing producer’s habits.
“ Big Business generally is not going to change and is just going to pass it on to the consumer (I know my company will and we have already talked about it!).”
From my new favourite site http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/carbon-taxin-q-and-a/, because he says it more eloquently than me!
Companies will pass on the cost. That’s the point. Let’s say they’ve already figured out the cheapest way to make a thing for six dollars. They sell it to you for ten. Then a carbon tax means it costs them eight dollars. They sell it to you for twelve instead. Same profit. But once that’s in place, they can start looking at whether they can reduce that two dollar carbon charge, and in doing so expand the amount of profit they’re making. Or, decide instead to bring the cost down and undercut a competitor. Businesses are very good at finding every possible saving in their processes. This gives them an incentive to do it.
“Some other companies will move off shore and continue to emit the same amount of CO2.”
It’s no small feat to shift an entire enterprise to another country, whether logistically or legally. And the scale of the businesses being targeted is such that they have immense operations, many of which have to be based in Australia (mining, power generation, etc). You can’t mine Australian uranium from China…
“(The steel industry is hanging by a thread already. They will be the first to go”
If we look at the record, BHP made a yearly profit of US$13 billion to June 2010. They then almost matched that in the next six months alone, eventually expanding their June 2011 profit to nearly $22 billion. Think about it for a second. That’s profit, in one year. It was far and away a record for any Australian company.
Let’s just break down this phrase. ‘Record profit’ means: more money than you have ever made before. Previously, while not earning that much money, you were able to support a certain number of employees. But now, making more money than you were previously making, should you lose some of that extra money to tax, you will not be able to sustain the same levels of employment that you were already sustaining with less money. You don’t need a very advanced level of maths to see that this is complete bunk. Let’s say it was 2005, and BHP had just posted their 2004/05 profit of $6.4 billion. Imagine you said to them, “In 2011, I’ll give you $19 billion.” Do you think they would have taken it? They’d have needed a fresh pair of pants, and you could only have got them out of the country by prising their teeth from your belt buckle. In 2011, though, if you say “You can make $22 billion, but you’ll pay… say… $3 billion of that in tax,” they then say “Tax? We only keep $19 billion? We’ll all beeeee rooooooned….”
loading...
“The carbon tax as proposed by our government will have ZERO effect on emissions for one simple reason – how are people’s habits going to change if you give them the cash back?”
The point is not to smash the economy and reduce emissions 80% on 1st July 2012. The point is to reduce emissions by a little bit by 2020 and a lot by 2050.
By compensating low and middle income earners, they aren’t punished for financial decisions they made prior to the tax. But the next time they make a decision, the price of carbon will now be factored in, so the chances are your decision will be slightly different.
It is the cheapest and most cost effective solution, and the one with the least government intervention.
loading...
Given that many here are too young to have much experience politically; point in case, your news editor wasn’t old enough to vote in the Howard/Latham election, there is a certain naivety in comments about the debate between Tony’s approach and Julia’s proposed legislation. This naivety carries over to the issue of the ‘carbon tax’ itself. Almost all comments ignore the elephant in the room: that this ‘carbon tax’ won’t affect the climate in any way at all.
Even Labor’s guru of warmist theory, Tim Flannery, agrees that this tax won’t change the climate. When asked, he admitted that any effect on the climate probably, if it occurred, wouldn’t be noticeable for hundreds or a thousand years. Ross Garnaut, the economist invested with the so-called interests of the Australian economy said he can’t see it making much difference. It makes you wonder what Labor and the Greens are up to.
Can they be that naive as to believe only one stream of science and then wager Australia’s economy on that whim? When much of the world, ie China, India and Germany, are forging ahead with increased coal fired power plants, when the US is treading cautiously with regard to economic climate sanctions, and countries such as Spain are feeling the economic brunt of premature action on green energy, why are we racing headlong into a self-induced shackling of our economy for the sake of appearances? For the sake of tokenism? Or for the misguided notion that the rest of the world will follow by example.
Is the rest of the world wrong, and Julia Gillard right?
loading...
Just because I’m turning 22 next week and voted for the first time in the 2007 Federal election doesn’t mean I am naive by default.
I get really offended when people suggest that just because they were born before me they deserve my respect or automatically their opinions are worth more than mine- they aren’t!
I’m 3 years into a commerce/arts degree at the moment and majoring in politics and public policy so whilst I’m not suggesting that I know everything on the topic perhaps I’m not as naive as you think…?
loading...
I am 51 and for most of my life voted National / Liberal. Your arguments against a carbon tax are fatuous at best. Most of Europe, the UK, NZ and yes even China are taking the scientific data on human induced climate change very seriously and introducing far more comprehensive measures to reduce carbon gas emissions that what Australia has planned. We are in the fortunate position where we could completely get rid of coal fired power stations by 2050, even sooner, with the roll on effect of the economic benefits accrued from the transition to newer technology and selling it to the rest of the world.
To say state that Australia being at the fore front of this change not making a difference highlights your ignorance (ie lack of knowledge) of the science and economics. Any reduction in growth of emissions is benfeicial and those that develop and implement new technology reap the highest benefit.
Your argument that re: “only one stream of science” can be best put by the analogy of would you trust a dentist to remove your appendix. Science has so many facets that no scientist can fully comprehend all other fields so we must rely on those who specialise in certain and complimentary fields.
loading...
Gig said: “Almost all comments ignore the elephant in the room: that this ‘carbon tax’ won’t affect the climate in any way at all.”
Really? And how do you know that?
This is the problem with guys like Gig… making sweeping statements that they have no hope of backing up. You have no idea what effect Australia placing a price on its GHG emissions will have on other countries and how much this will reduce global emissions over the next 50 years. So give it a rest.
And by the way stop saying “carbon tax” like the Gillard government is the only party proposing it. At least Labor’s tax is temporary and placed on the highest 500 polluters in the country. The Libs are going to rip a few $Billion a year out of ordinary taxpayers pockets to hand to their multi-billion dollar a year profit making buddies in big business. Forever. For REALLY no benefit.
And they have the gall to criticise Labor for not looking after battling families.
Hypocrites.
loading...
CO2 limits won’t cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.
Federal Treasury analysis shows the Opposition’s direct action climate change policy would cost twice as much as a carbon tax for the same reduction in emissions.
The economies of the future will be clean energy economies. Scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low pollution economy: thirty-two countries and ten US states already have emissions trading schemes. Others, including China, Taiwan, Chile and South Korea and a number of Canadian provinces, are either considering developing their own or already have trial emissions trading schemes in place.
loading...
No Chris, while China is “considering developing their own” emissions trading scheme, they are developing coal fired power stations at a rate of knots. Any policy that Australia institutes to cut emissions over a year is overridden by China in a matter of days. Wake up and smell the roses, this is a futile and unnecessary tax on Australian business.
It won’t do a damn thing for the environment.
loading...
I believe the carbon tax would be better introduced at a time then there was econmic confidence in Australia. I do not believe that we can afford it right now, world economies are collapsing, our own is on shakey ground. Manufacturing industries are having enough problems with the high dollar, this tax will cripple them. Manufactruing will certainly move overseas to China, who will happily pollute without restrictions, so in the end the world will be more toxic & more Australians wil be unemployed.
loading...
Too late, manufacturing has already moved to China (and India) not due to the Carbon Tax but low cost manufacturing sought by foreign companies who have bought Aussie companies. They have no vested interest in locally manufactured products, they just want to increase their margins. That is why manufacturing is dying in Aust. American Coporate Greed.
loading...
I’m so sorry, but anything that Tony Abbot thinks leaves me cold. The guy is a hate-monger. I’ve not heard anything positive or inspirational leave this blokes mouth. The thought of this guy in power gives me the willies.
loading...
I love this debate. Firstly, this and future generations will pay for the waste and abuse of past generations who have lived on this planet with little regard of the consequences of polluting the environment. Whether climate change is man made or is part of a natural cycle is irrelevant, man has polluted the world since we first came out of the cave.
The thing is, now,we know this. What is the worst case scenario of being enviromentally responsible? We pay a little extra every week, so what? Those who cannot afford to will be compensated so stop complaining. I have no problem with looking towards the future with green coloured glasses. It is time we treated this planet with respect, God knows it’s been a long time.
loading...
The Lib policy takes your taxes, gives them to the polluters and then they say “try harder, next time not to pollute & by the way, I’ll plant some trees to mollify the green/left types.”
So YOUR taxes magically find their way into the coffers of Australians biggest companies and serial polluters — and you get screwed again. Don’t the Lib lovers get they are being conned yet again?
The Labor policy says, let’s tax the polluters so they reform, move half of the taxes to offset cost rises among the needy and lower income brackets and the other half to stimulate investment in new energy.
It’s real simple people: the only wealth distribution going on its the Libs disengeous sham of moving your tax dollars back into the pockets of big business — again. Like the Mining Super Profits Tax, you fools mistakenly believe these corporations care for anything else but their own profits and the Lib carbon plan is a shell game to give them more of your hard earned dollars.
loading...
In a long article, Mr Abbot’s ideas of how he’lll do this better take up perhaps two lines; all the rest is just bagging the government.
At least the government is doing something, Tony, which is better than nothing (which is what the opposition’s policy seems to amount to).
I’m a Greens voter and I don’t think the carbon tax policy is strong enough, but it’s as much as she was able to get through. Hopefully in a year or two when we’re used to it and the sky hasn’t fallen in, it’ll be widened.
loading...
Tony Abbott’s arguments are pretty feeble.
“Plant more trees?” “Farms are already switching from chemical to organic?” Really? Best not change anything then, hey Tony?
loading...
Agreed. Julia’s tax is inequitable on so many fronts and all it does is push up costs. There are better ways.
loading...
Such as? No one else has come up with any other options.
loading...
The carbon tax will do nothing to save the planet which is what we are supposed to be doing. But could it inspire other countries to do the same? Maybe, but probably not. I read where in one region of India next year there will be twenty million more people receiving electricity. They will go out and buy equipment that boosts carbon up again. China is the same. Thirty million cars extra going onto the roads YEARLY from 2015. Sorry, but i don’t see any future for the planet in the next century unless we get the population back to around two to three billion. How do you do that? That is what is scaring me!
loading...
Here’s what I know – I got my gas bill yesterday and it was 20% higher than for this period last year.
Under a carbon tax we could add another 10% to that. Maybe more.
For me that means I’ll be turning my heating off much more and living in an icy cold house in minus temperatures with my husband and children.
Call me crazy but I don’t want to live in the dark ages, cooking meals on a camp stove because I can’t afford to use electricity and gas.
All of you carbon supporters out there, are you going to chip in some cash so that my family (and many others) don’t have to live like this in the winter months?
Or will you suggest that I give up my 3 bedroom house and move with my family of 4 to a one bedroom unit so I can consume less energy and therefore be more environmentally friendly?
I already have insulation in my house, the energy (both gas and electricity) used in Canberra where I live is already green energy (snowy-hydro electric scheme) – what more can I do to reduce costs except turn the heating off altogether? My heating is only set to 19 degrees as recommended by the energy saving brochures.
Tell me seriously – what more can I do? Other than moving from my house which with stamp duty and massively expensive property prices I cannot afford to do.
The carbon tax is bullshit. It is not about the environment at all. It is about getting more money back into the economy to plug the massive hole that was left when the Rudd government spent to budget surplus and all the other money. It’s being introduced because the amount of revenue available to the government through taxes has been gradually reducing over the past 10 years.
This will be the highest taxing government in Australia’s history by the time they are finished. I’m tempted actually to chuck in my job and live off welfare – that seems to be the only way the government will give a crap about me.
And from an ideological perspective I am really pissed off that a government that was not elected by a majority of Australians is making such a massive tax and policy change without a mandate of support and in the face of massive resistance from the people.
It is insulting to think that the government is so arrogant that it really doesn’t care what people think on the issue. It makes a total mockery of democracy.
loading...
Have you considered using solar power? You don’t mention it in your house description so just wondering.
loading...
I’d love to – can you loan me $20k so I can install it? Also I don’t think solar is quite up to meeting the demand of heating a house and gas is much more efficient for that purpose.
loading...
Solar power does not have to used for heating but for other uses in the house which cuts down your electricity bill. While you may still have to spend the same on your gas bill, your overall power bills will be less.
I don’t know why you would have to pay $20K to install it. Is there something unusual about your house? This link has some really good info on costs etc.
http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/resourcecentre/Consumer-Info/solarPV-guide
loading...
I think Anon is right. If you wanted to completely power your home on solar, even in the teeth of winter, you’d need a tonne of panels. I don’t believe Canberra is the sunniest of places in winter.
I have solar hot water and solar power (about 1/3 of what I need for the family) and it cost me close to $10K.
My electricity is going up 6% by the State and then the carbon tax will add another 10%.
I’m with Anon on this one.
loading...
Obviously I don’t know the detail of your personal circumstances, but as a general comment…..
“…are you going to chip in some cash…?” In a sense, yes. That’s what the compensation package is for, and rightly so.
Given the size of the compensation package, and also given that the ‘tax’ is an interim step to an ETS, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to accuse the government of only introducing it for the revenue.
loading...
It’s not a democracy at the moment, it’s a dictatorship.
loading...
Stop whining… you’re gonna be compensated. It’s been said a million times.
How hard is it to understand?
loading...
I read the article and comments when I first saw the tweet on Monday morning (soon after the Green Capital breakfast with the PM). It was good to see a rational discussion taking place. I came back to read comments again today. I wonder if the Mamamia forum is a better indicator of what people think rather than opinion polls with carefully phrased questions?
loading...
i hope so!
loading...
I dropped back in hoping to see that Mr Abbott had responded to some of the genuine and intelligent questions posed by many commenters. Not yet – maybe later? There were a few comments about how good it was to see him engage with this community. It would be disappointing if ‘engage’ turned out to mean ‘deliver the carefully tailored message and disappear’.
loading...
I doubt he will even read the responses himself. It will be one of the party analysts who will use the info to work on strategies to get the demographics who aren’t leaning to the libs/nats on board their boat.
loading...
…and there I was thinking he was replying as “Anonymous”…
loading...
did Jenny Macklin reply to questions posed to her last week?
loading...
Her staff offered to get answers to any new questions when I asked them about it.
loading...
But did the minister reply to any of the questions asked ?
loading...
Nope
loading...
Great minds think alike (lol).
loading...
“My concern with the carbon tax is that it feels like a complete re-distrbution of wealth and the problem that could hurt the Australian economy (including job losses to overseas companies that don’t have to pay the carbon tax). Why cant we look at a system that rewards, instead of penalises big polluters (and therefore consumers). Encourage with a carrot rather than hit with a stick companies to initiate innovation that will really make changes. They can communicate this to consumers and encourage people to switch to those companies that are making positive change for the better. Supply and demand…
I don’t think the LNP have the solution cracked either, but making a positive change through incentives rather than punishment feels like a better solution.”
Marie, below, expressed part of my thoughts very well.
Additionally, what worries me is the announcement of 6 Government Agencies to oversee spending of the new tax monies.
I’d like to point out to people that while our government are completely toying with our economic system, we are looking down the barrel of another GFC. It didn’t hit as hard here as overseas because of the stimulus package, but all that money will be for nothing if the government doesn’t have it’s figures right.
Commentators also say that other countries have put a price on carbon, well, we don’t have the head of population to soak up the cost of retooling. If your company markets to Europe, you can increase prices by cents and recoup the money quickly, you cannot do that in Australia. It makes sense local businesses will suffer because we are such a small market place.
I also don’t like the idea that companies will offset their emissions by buying dodgy offsets that don’t really exist. How is that going to be policed?
It looks like another election of voting for the least worst candidate.
loading...
Yes, and if you are remotely concerned about the enviornment, the least worst candidate is Julia Gillard, because the Liberal Parties carbon reduction plan (and expressed by Tony Abbott above) doesn’t address reducing emissions.
It’s a pity he didn’t negotiate a better package like Turnbull.
loading...
A carbon tax didn’t hurt Sweden. They introduced a carbon tax in 1991 and their economy has grown by 44% and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 8%
The link below is a video that explains the carbon tax in 2 minutes and talks about how a carbon tax will encourage big polluters to be more green because it will be more competitive.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/climate-announcement/give-facts-a-head-start/
loading...
I think Sweeden is renowed as having one of the highest costs of living in the western world…
loading...
Again you omit a mention of Sweden’s use of Nuclear power and that they left fuels for electricity out of the things that can be taxed. And Swedes can also drive across a border and buy things there, so it’s not really a fair comparison to Australia.
loading...
I don’t think you can encourage behaviour change with a carrot rather than a stick. Human nature being what it is, people need to feel a certain amount of pain before they will consider change, especially where change does not bring immediate benefit to them but will in the long-term.
An example of this is when I worked in chronic disease management with patients. Very few people would lose weight, give up smoking, eat healthily until they actually had a heart attack or developed diabetes.
loading...
Its not about carrots or sticks. It’s just the way the economy works: supply, demand, price. Emissions, and the consequent cost to the community, have simply been left out of the system. An ETS is a way of incorporating them.
loading...
Interesting that Mr Abbott can change his message depending on what target group he is aiming to reach. It would seem he has very different thoughts about the 5% reduction in pollution when he is talking to older Australians
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/global-fears-wont-stall-carbon-tax-plan/story-fn99tjf2-1226096840377
And his spin on the taxation system and compensation has already been revealed by other commenters here- thanks for pointing that out.
Maybe Mr Abbott needs a nick name too?
Phony Tony anyone?
loading...
I think Tony Abbott’s arguments here are substantially disingenuous and designed to promote uncertainty and fear rather than understanding or a true appreciation of the alternative that he is offering. He’s lost me, but his lazy fear-based arguing lost me long ago so that’s no great surprise.
Honestly – talking about couples with different income make-ups getting different compensation? That’s an existing fact-of-life under progressive taxation, give me a solution to the old problem if you’re so concerned, don’t pretend it’s a new one.
Raising fears around electricity prices – I don’t see him giving Barnett a serve for increasing prices in WA by 50%.
The coalition’s policy is one of reaction and bidding-down in response to a problem that Tony Abbott doesn’t think is real. His approach still requires taxpayers to foot the bill, except instead of the market acting to drive down emissions, the government gets to pick winners with our money based on prospective assumptions about emission reductions. Given the track record of most governments in picking winners and falling prey to industry lobbying, I’m given no confidence in their ability to manage a centrally-planned carbon economy.
Given the Liberal Party’s continuing advocacy of tree planting soil-carbon I don’t think the have a very good handle on the science or the economics as neither is scalable, and soil carbon actually represents one of the least cost-effective mitigation methods available, but that doesn’t matter when it sounds green apparently.
As for Tony Abbott lecturing on credibility, this from the man who told us not to take any of his unscripted comments as gospel truth? Or did it need to be in writing, I don’t quite recall now. Not that it matters – I forgave him for his previous “absolute crap” stance on global warming, but his current obstructionist rhetoric is beyond the pale.
[I now see most of my points have been well and truly canvassed already, wow, this is so much nicer than wading upstream on the SMH website, I should come here more often]
loading...
We have very smart commenters!
loading...
I hope Mr. Abbott actually takes the time to read these comments.
loading...
I have real trouble believing that Tony Abbott will do anything to protect the environment. He claims that in eleven years in Govt the Green Corp was his greatest achievment. This is not enough and Aust should have been acting years ago, but the Govt Abbott was in would not even sign Koto. His plan is uncosted and so could easily be scrapped as too expensive if he is elected. I cant trust him to protect the enviroment for my kids and grandkids
loading...
I don’t understand how anyone can take Abbott’s comments seriously, remember the “Climate change is crap” comment? His policy of just planting trees is completely laughable!
loading...
I could, but I chose to not remind you of a few famous Prime Ministerial backflips.
loading...
Those people arguing that Australians can’t afford a carbon tax need to realise that there is no cheap way to tackle climate change and no matter what strategy is implemented in the end we will have to bare the cost in one way or another.
loading...
I just posted on Jenny Macklin’s post and then read Tony’s comments. I am certainly not in agreement with Mr Abbott the majority of the time, but I did latch onto one point Tony Abbott has made about the fund to encourage innovation:
“The Coalition wants to encourage more of this by establishing a new fund, about $1 billion a year, to help pay for the most cost-effective proposals for reducing emissions via a tender process.” I didn’t get from this “let’s plant a whole lot of trees”!
My concern with the carbon tax is that it feels like a complete re-distrbution of wealth and the problem that could hurt the Australian economy (including job losses to overseas companies that don’t have to pay the carbon tax). Why cant we look at a system that rewards, instead of penalises big polluters (and therefore consumers). Encourage with a carrot rather than hit with a stick companies to initiate innovation that will really make changes. They can communicate this to consumers and encourage people to switch to those companies that are making positive change for the better. Supply and demand…
I don’t think the LNP have the solution cracked either, but making a positive change through incentives rather than punishment feels like a better solution.
loading...
“feels like a complete re-distrbution of wealth” Really??? because someone on over $80,000 per year loses out by about $300 per year and someone on the pension gets about $300 a year extra. If i were going into re-distribution of wealth it owuld have to be a lot more to make all this pain (in getting the carbon tax sorted) worthwhile!
loading...
As you have also quoted “The Coalition wants to encourage more of this by establishing a new fund, about $1 billion a year, to help pay for the most cost-effective proposals for reducing emissions via a tender process.”
Where is this billion dollars coming from? As Fred says above (19 July @ 5:47pm ) ‘The Lib policy takes your taxes, gives them to the polluters and then they say “try harder, next time not to pollute & by the way, I’ll plant some trees to mollify the green/left types.’ So YOUR taxes magically find their way into the coffers of Australians biggest companies…”
You say to encourage with a carrot rather than hit with a stick.. but you seem to be forgetting that carrots aren’t free!
loading...
“Two weevils crept from the crumbs. ‘You see those weevils, Stephen?’ said Jack solemnly.
I do.’
Which would you choose?’
There is not a scrap of difference. Arcades ambo. They are the same species of curculio, and there is nothing to choose between them.’
But suppose you had to choose?’
Then I should choose the right-hand weevil; it has a perceptible advantage in both length and breadth.’
There I have you,’ cried Jack. ‘You are bit – you are completely dished. Don’t you know that in the Navy you must always choose the lesser of two weevils? Oh ha, ha, ha, ha!”
— Patrick O’Brian
http://green-agenda.com/
loading...
Tony Abbott spends most of this post tearing apart the carbon tax but does not provide a realistic alternative.
Australia is the driest continent on earth. Trees need water, much more than grasslands. We can’t just plant trees everywhere to offset carbon dioxide emissions, we don’t have the water supply to do that.
loading...
but Cate. Before Europeans came here there was much more land given over to forest and trees. Maybe it’s just that it can work if we plant the right trees for the right location and environment? Once there were 200ft cedars at the foot of the Blue Mountains that were as thick as railway cars before they were all cut down.
loading...
Yes, haz1902, there is lots of land suitable for trees in Australia but this land is also suitable for crops, orchards and pasture. What do we want more, trees or food?
And, this still doesn’t solve the issue of water. The reason water was more plentiful before European settlement was that there was no intensive irrigation of the land. Sure, I’m all for restoring forests but I do like to eat too.
The tree planting would have to be on such a huge scale that we would have to make decissions to convert some of our best farming land to forest and woodland. The fact is that nice as it sounds, planting trees is not a realistic solution and it’s irresponsible of Tony Abbott to suggest it.
loading...
forget the politicians for a moment. for your statement, we could then plant many more food trees. There is one tree that would give farmers a market, good in wet or drought and most climates and has a great market…..olive trees!
loading...
cate you do realise that this tax is going to drive up the cost of transporting australian grown fruit and vegetables so it won’t matter if we have the land to grow our own produce or not. It will become cheaper to import than for our own truckies to haul a load of bananas from qld to nsw. I hope everyone likes eating imported fruit and vegetables.
loading...
What a load of bollocks!
The cost to haul goods after the carbon tax is introduced will be miniscule. Stop spreading garbage.
loading...
Fundamentally exasperated with Tony Abbotts tones arguments and policies that hark back to the late nineties to 2007 – all dressing, no action pandering to the mining sector. What particularly is upsetting is the constant framing of Julia Gillard as a liar and untrustworthy. Judging by some comments here that is swallowed hook line and sinker. As picked by others today Tony Abbott has put forward two opposing positions one here supporting the cut and one at a forum. Much is made of the pre election no carbon tax position by attacking the PM : “she lied”. Yet Tony Abbott is pulling the wool over many an eye, remember his response to accusations of flip flopping or even lying: if you are presented with different circumstances or information what do you do? I change my mind to reflect that or along those lines. Tony has also admitted to well not exactly telling the truth in that cut thrust battle of politics yet is now framed by himself as an authentic bloke. “SHE is a liar and not to be trusted.” So why is this horrible double standard allowed to fester? I put to you that Julia Gillard has not lied on either accounts that the
PM Did not lie – circumstances changed. The first female Prime Minister is being attacked by identity politics of the worse kind. The PM is a SHE as Tony Abbott repeatedly spits out. Mia having seen you in person I respected what you presented and achieved as a person which was the key point of your talk. I’m hoping you can do likewise to bring a little respect back to national discourse.
loading...
Tony Abbott will need to plant so many trees in Australia that the ‘red centre’ becomes the ‘green centre’.
loading...
The only reason Abbott is at all remotely interested in climate is because he had to come up with something to play against the proactiveness of labors carbon tax.
Does his policy stand up? I am not sure, but I do know in my heart that he doesn’t give a hoot really and is doing this to win office.
Would Gillard be stupid enough to go back on her word to introduce something that is polarising the nation and potentially booting her out of office to keep her top spot? Unlikely. Thinking and caring about the future of the planet and Australia over personal interest. Is this Abbott? Not bloody likely.
And no, I didn’t vote for Latham, he was a tosser, I chose the Greens and I would probably never vote for Liberals until Howard’s memeory has become a distant fog in my arteries!!!
loading...
I’m quite interested to know if you guys think that we can trust Julia Gillard and this government? I won’t go over the history, but given what has been said and the problems with the other big government programs, do you think that we can trust the information we are being given and the governments ability to get this reform right?
I voted for Julia, I really thought she’d be strong and honest and, admittedly, wanted to see a woman given the chance to create history but I’ve been really disappointed. Do others feel the same or do you still have faith?
loading...
See my above comment about would Gillard be so stupid…etc
loading...
Im disappointed in Julia but not because of the ‘liar’ propoganda. Having to compromise on pre-election statements is simply a reality of heading up a minority government and its facile, cheap-shot opportunism by the opposition that has given the ‘liar’ tag so much profile. And given Howard’s performance, its hypocritical too. The opposition presents as hecklers and wreckers, not as a credible alternative.
My disappointment in Julia comes from the government pandering to the red-neck vote – the approach to refugees is a case in point, the quick reinstatement of the live cattle trade, and the position on same-sex marriage have also disappointed me. The government’s preparedness to push hard on the carbon tax is its only saving grace at the moment in my view. And given how the tax is to be implemented, I cant believe how many people who will be minimally affected, or not affected at all, are complaining about it.
loading...
Very disappointed, but not surprised as a lot of women in power act just like men.
My disappointment is for most of the reasons stated by Kate!
However, I’m not in favour of the tax reform being proposed. I think it’s unfair to single income families.
loading...
Ha Ha! Very subtle Suzanne. The old subliminal message phrased as a question eh!
Ms. Gillard is by far one of the most trustworthy politicians in Australia today.
So she said she wasn’t going to have a carbon tax… so what? I’m sure she wasn’t expecting a hung parliament and the introduction of a price on carbon became one of the main bargaining points of the Greens and Independents. What Abbott doesn’t tell anyone these days is that HE would have implemented a carbon tax to gain power as well… it’s just that the Greens and Independents didn’t trust him.
Get that… he lost the election because his parliamentary colleagues didn’t TRUST him. And rightly so.
Every utterance from Tony’s mouth since the election has been underpinned with the whinge that he wasn’t handed power that he fundamentally believes is his right. And he is willing to spread fear and foster ignorance in the electorate to achieve his goal of securing power. When really all he had to do was have some real, tangible, defendable policies to show the electorate and he would have won in a canter. Talk about hopeless!
And as for your subliminal message Suzanne… perhaps if you read the independant reports that have been published on the Pink Batts and BER schemes you will see the truth of their success, as opposed to the outright crap the Liberals and their media buddies at News Ltd have been peddling.
loading...
WOW! – (1) The carbon price is environmentalism dressed up as socialism which is going to redistribute bucketloads of money from the rich to the poor AND – (2) it is going to crush the poor struggling families that can’t afford it.
So which one is it Mr Abbott -(1) or -(2). Doesn’t matter does it! because you realise the psychology of propaganda is such that many people in each of these groups will respond to your campaign and react to the one that seems to apply to them – even though they are both pretty baseless and in fact contradict each other.
And I’m interested to know, given the rapid industrialisation in China, India and Brazil (almost 3 billion people)- do you really think planting some trees and trying to bury carbon is in any way a realistic or effective response to the need for the world to radically change its energy habits?
I’d also like to ask you Mr Abbott – Did you write this policy yourself? Or did you get your friends in the energy and mining sector to write it for you? We know the Liberal government has a past history of inviting the corporates from the energy and mining sector to write government policy
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1566257.htm
- so I’d like to know is this *your* policy or did Rio Tinto write it. Because it certainly seems like something Rio Tinto would write.
The world needs to respond to the considerable problems posed by warming and Australia has the opportunity to be a world leader in terms of policy, ingenuity and change – positioning itself ahead of others in terms of energy efficiency, research and innovation. And your response is… let’s plant some trees!!! You can’t be serious.
You want to protect the interests of the energy industry and have us stagnate right where we are with the highest per capita carbon emissions, choking on the fumes of the dirty, malfunctioning coal train, and put the burden on the rest of the world to steer us to a cleaner future.
loading...
any one who is a climate change skeptic or denialist should read this
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and this
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/index.php
loading...
Why? What a waste of time reading bald and unsupported assertions. These are not facts or science but editorials. How about someone tell me the actual temperature of the earth before we decide the direction it is heading in. As for the thermometers, have a look where they are located. You might as well have put whem in hot water.
loading...
Have just read that Lord Monckton will be addressing the National Press Club luncheon tomorrow. Apparently, half the available seats have been given to members of GetUp! and the Greens.
Click that one into the Tivo and the IQ folks. 12.30PM, ABC1. I’ll be interested in Lord Monckton’s comments and the respect that the audience will no doubt show the guest speaker.
Go on. Live dangerously. We may all learn something that we hadn’t considered before.
loading...
Like how he has a cure for Graves’ disease and AIDS.
I’m open to listening to people with different opinions but as has been written elsewhere you are not being bias if you ignore the loonies.
loading...
Monckton has been discredited so many times…for example, his claim that he is a member of the House of Lords:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/monckton_rebuked.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29
Bradley, you seem to respect people who least deserve any respect…
loading...
Again incorrect. This assertion, based on one comment by a single lower court judge establishes nothing except that the “Lords” were prepared to go to court to keep their club exclusive.
loading...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750
‘The British House of Lords has taken the extraordinary step of publishing an open letter reiterating that high-profile climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton is not a member of the UK’s Upper House.
The House of Lords published a “cease and desist” letter on its website demanding that Lord Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the Upper House.
It comes after Lord Monckton told ABC Radio’s Adam Spencer that he is a member of the House of Lords, but that he does not have the right to sit or vote.’
loading...
Yes, I wonder why they have also refused to put his reply on their web sit? Anyone who makes up there mind based on one sides version of the facts risks getting it very wrong.
loading...
are you suggesting the House of lords is lying? that’s a pretty big accusation there!
loading...
I’d be all for the Carbon Tax too, if I could afford it.
I think that the majority of Australians would support it, and acknowledge that something needs to be done but the fact is, the average australian just can’t stretch an already stretched household budget.
loading...
Not rich, you won’t be taxed. Large companies that pollute the environment are the ones that will pay.
I really believe that instead of going out to “wear out her shoe leather” the Prime Minister should’ve spent time explaining in plain easy to understand English, exactly what placing a price on carbon means.
loading...
When the cost of electricity and transport goes up…..everyone pays. A couple of hundred bucks at the end of the tax year is not going to make a dint.
loading...
I’ve noticed quite a number of comments stating that this one and that one will never vote Liberal whilst Tony Abbott is leader of the party.
I wonder….did they vote for Labor when Mark Latham was leader or did they give Howard the big tick ?
loading...
I wasn’t old enough to vote, but I did hand out how to vote cards for my boss running as a Liberal in a Labor seat and got into many scraps with the Labor fellows…
loading...
I was just thinking about that myself – I’m a swinging voter; before I voted for Kevin Rudd’s Labor govt, I think I supported John Howard. But I wasn’t really into politics at that stage so I can’t be sure I remember correctly.
All I know is – as long as Tony Abbott is in charge of the Libs, I’m not even considering them.
loading...
Latham was off-putting, but I haven’t voted for any of the biggies for years.
loading...
I wasn’t old enough to vote for latham (i think) but I wouldn’t have, never liked him. My recollection is I voted for Howard once the greens once, and labour in the 07 and 10 elections. Whilst Tony Abbott is leader of the Coalition, I won’t be voting for them. I can say without hesitation that if Malcolm Turbull was opposition leader during the last election, I would have voted for the coalition.
loading...
This is a good read for anyone interested in the climate change debate. It’s an opinion piece and got me thinking about how much mis-information there is out there regarding how much setting a price on carbon will cost us.
Personally I’d be happy to give up the cost of a coffee a week to help the environment
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html
And for those who say it’s going to ruin them and destroy their farm/business/life etc, please tell me how that will happen. I’m not being “funny” just genuinely interested.
loading...
I want to hear how people’s businesses/farms/lives will be destroyed too – so many people are saying it, but I wonder how rationally they are approaching this given so many people can’t even correctly work out at the end of the day (myself included) what this is really going to cost them each week…
For example, I have heard people saying that the mines and factories they work in will be closed – but on Q&A last week, the PM was adamant that the coal/steel/(insert emitter) industries will all actually grow and not decline, meaning no job losses.
So yes, I’m genuinely interested too
loading...
For both of you, i can say that i have encountered dozens of people already ‘living on the edge’ trying to run businesses and raise small families (and i only encountered people like that on an otherwise small scale – so i would wager that there are 1000′s of these households). they honestly dont have an inch to budge either way as far as their budget is concerned, and yes if you consider that increasing electricity costs will also be reflected in groceries etc, even with the ‘tax breaks’, these people will fall.
I should also point out that these people dont run expensive or duplicate appliances, nor are they wasteful in other areas.
Look at the current mortgage and reposession rates and tell those people that they will find things easier when prices go up.
I hardly believe anyone can be that ignorant to suggest that there are not people who will be genuinely, negatively impacted by this tax in an otherwise irreparable way.
loading...
Oh god, not another one! How hard is it to grasp the reality and forget the crap that Abbott and his bunch of clowns is dishing out?
Low to middle income earners will be compensated, in some cases by more than any cost increase. They won’t feel the pinch.
Yes there will be people negatively impacted… the rich! And I’m sure they will be able to afford the extra $10.00 a week the tax will affect prices.
And CM… stop spreading BS… who are these mysterious dozens of people? I know dozens of people as well, all running businesses and none of them are complaining about the carbon tax. The people you know must be competely uninformed!
loading...
For all of you who are confused or don’t know anything about carbon tax go to this site and watch the video
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/climate-announcement/give-facts-a-head-start/
loading...
If we really want to tackle Climate Change, we need to focus on helping the Australian business industry. We need to support Australian grown and developed produce. If we keep taxing our industries, we will tax them out of Australia. Then we will be left with importing a huge percent of our produce from where? Countries that could care less about climate change and countries that have horrible working conditions. Gillard’s approach is a costly, high gloss veneer designed to make it seem like Labour will take action. Australia should lead the way on industry development, waste management and researching new cleaner fuel options/the use of by-products, not tax ourselves into oblivion! Abbott refers to existing programs of this nature (Green Corps etc), and if we want a healthy, greener future for Australia we have to develop it within our means and at the same time save our industries.
loading...
All through this argument absolutely no one has said that this will reduce climate change.
I’ve heard a lot of fluffy comments about how it’s doing something and we will lead the word (which I highly doubt given all the struggles going on in other economies). Having lived in the US and Britain we don’t really feature highly on their radars.
Give me proof that it will fix climate change and I’ll listen. Am simply worried it’ll destroy our economy for no positive outcome.
Do love the idea of Mr Abbott’s to plant more trees, that’s a positive for the environment on many levels, not just climate change.
loading...
Give me proof? How about reading anything from, you know, climate scientists.
loading...
Great, can you give me the percentage figure by which the carbon tax will reduce climate change. I’ve read reports by ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery who are widely accepted experts and they said the figure was a lot less than a percent. Can you tell me the evidence you have found?
I’m not trying to be difficult but I generally like facts and figures before making a decision.
loading...
I gave you an example with Sweden below who reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% after introducing a carbon tax, and it was great for their economy.
loading...
Thanks, can you tell me where to find that information? Others would probably be interested too.
I thinks it’s very positive that people are obviously doing their own research.
loading...
I;ve been browsing the web for and i found that bit of information i found from an interview with the legendary David Suzuki (one of the worlds leading and most respected environmental scientist) at ABC carbon http://abccarbon.com/profile-dr-david-suzuki/
David Suzuki Foundation website also has some great information on climate change related topics that everyone should read because it cuts through the confusing bullshit and is easy to understand. Here are some links if anyone is interested.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-101-1/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/greenhouse-gases/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/index.php
loading...
Thanks Arrow. I’ll read them too.
loading...
It is a good idea to plant trees, but under Mr Abbott’s policy we would have to plant a ridiculous amount of trees – I’ve heard a figure such as ‘planting a forest three times the size of Tasmania’. I’m not sure that is even possible! And where would the water come from? I think Mr Abbott’s policy is not really a policy, he doesn’t have an alternative so he just says ‘no’ all the time – wouldn’t it be better to stop fighting and just agree to do something. The policy we have in front of us now is something – so let’s just agree and get on with it!!
loading...
I read a study on the weekenk that said trees capture a lot more carbon dioxide than they previously thought.
Personally I think it would a huge benefit to prevent old growth forests around the world from being logged, it would help capture a lot of carbon dioxide and save so many species from extinction.
loading...
Our water resources are already stretched. We can’t plant more trees, there simply isn’t enough water.
loading...
Where did you get this info Cate? Is there an article I can read about that?
loading...
Nothing personal against you, Suzanne.
I, too, think planting trees is a wonderful, lovely thing to do but the environmental issues we’re facing today and will face in the future need a much more comprehensive strategy than Abbott’s tokenistic Green Army.
If that’s the best Abbott’s got, he clearly doesn’t have the intellect or the capacity for innovation required of a nation leader – a Boy Scout leader, maybe!
Not that I’d want any son of mine being mentored by him, what with his archaic views on women and all…
loading...
If you knew tony abbot you would also know that those “archaic” views on women is just the media taking comments out of context to cause damage. Very unfair. It couldn’t be further from the truth.
loading...
I’m not so sure… I haven’t got the idea from the media so much as what has very clearly come out of his own mouth.
loading...
In 1991 Sweden initiated a carbon tax. Today they pay $150 a tonne and have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 8%. During that time the Swedish economy has grown by 44%.
loading...
No tax was initially applied to fuels used for energy generation and industries were only required to pay 50% of the tax.
Swedes get rebates when they buy fuel efficient cars.
I don’t believe transport was taxed.
The Swedes also get electricity from Nuclear or Hydro power.
loading...
You guys never stop trying to spread as much misinformation as you can, I’ll give you that.
No tax will be applied to fuels for energy generation under Labor’s carbon pricing mechanism. Generators will receive virtually all of their emissions permits for free for the first 6 years of the program.
Please read the information in the CEFP before you post your ridiculously biased comments. It ain’t hard.
loading...
…and the Swedish economy is absolutely nothing like the Australian economy.
loading...
Australia is more than 17 times larger in area than Sweden – its apples and oranges….
loading...
I think that the Liberal Party’s approach to the problem is much better than Labor’s Carbon Tax proposal. This massive redistribution of wealth is not going to solve a problem like global warming.
The biggest gripe I have with the carbon tax is that it is punishing businesses that support our economy, that give our community jobs that keep the disadvantaged in welfare to live.
One of the things that I don’t think Labor understands is the impact it will have on Australia. They are telling everyone that it will be all rainbows and unicorns once the tax is only taxing those big, nasty, polluting businesses and handing back money to pay for the power bills of the strugglers. The power will continue to go up, the fuel will increase, it will cost more to eat and we will not be a competitive country for trade. That $300 a year isn’t going to go far once this tax pushes prices up anyway.
As a farmer this will hurt us more so than others. We have been told to brace ourselves for a average of $15000 per year increase in operating costs. It is going to erode net farm incomes by 2.4 per cent and that is supposed to be whilst fuel is protected from the tax for the time being. And this is most likely to be taxed as well once it really gets up and running. We have absorbed costs as much as we can. We take lower prices for our produce all the time due to the government’s inept dealings with overseas customers (live trade bans). We have no room to move and we are backed into a corner with the costs spiralling out of control. We burn as little diesel as we can when we sow our crops due to GPS technolgy. We save emissions by direct-drill sowing techniques. We have cut as many costs as we can and until the technology catches up to our quest to cut pollution – we will be gone by then and Australia will import food.
Is everyone comfortable with the notion that we will import everything, export nothing and manufacture nothing at the hand of poor government tax law reform? We will only be growing trees for the hunger to offset the world’s emissions. Because that is what will happen under Julia’s proposal and carbon plan
Respect existance, or expect resistance.
loading...
Who told you that you would have to brace yourselves for an increase in operating costs of $15000 per annum?
loading...
Well you can bet that it wasn’t Julia or any of her cohorts. They’ve been very short on detail thus far, and when some detail is offered the content changes. That’s why I’m still listening to everyone and haven’t closed my mind completely.
loading...
Yikes!!!
Accidentally put an extra 0 on there. Sorry, should of checked before hitting send.
Here is the link.
http://www.nff.org.au/read/2135/carbon-concessions-still-cost-for-australian.html
loading...
The NSW farmers site told us to expect $11000 cost increase. Our own personal figures estimate it to be higher.
http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/71854/102.nr.11.pdf
loading...
I understand your concerns, however this tax doesn’t include fuel, so fuel prices aren’t going to rise. Also, unfortunately the Liberals policy won’t work – to reach the target they have of reducing emissions 5% by 2020 they have to plant a forest the size of Germany! Where on earth are they going to do that, and where are they going to the get the water from? I think making the big polluters pay a small cost is the most sensible approach, because then there is an incentive for them to clean up, and also some money raised that we can put back into renewable energy. And if they do pass on some of the costs, well, it will encourage us to use less energy and use cleaner energy, but low-income people will be compensated. Also, I think this is the policy we have on the table now, it’s supported by the Independents, the Greens, economists and business leaders like NAB, Grocon, Origin Energy, etc – if we don’t support this we will wait many years for another policy and we should really do something about pollution now.
loading...
I believe fuel prices wont rise for the private individual or the small business man. That does not include transportation companies that farmers and others rely on to get goods to market. Unlike Sweden, we are a huge country dependent on road trains.
loading...
Neither of the links supplied by happymum and mel give any costings that support either claim of $1500 or $11000 increased costs to farmers per annum so it is hard to rely on these figures.
happymum’s site does give this information also:
“Confirmation that agriculture will not be covered by the carbon tax, that agricultural fuel will be removed from the scheme, that more than $400 million will be invested into agricultural carbon mitigation R&D and extension, and that support for primary food processors will be provided to transition to a low emissions future, demonstrates the Government has been listening.
“We are pleased to see movement in each of these areas, as well as measures to support non-Kyoto compliant CFI credits and to reward on-farm biodiversity projects,” Mr Linnegar said.
It doesn’t appear that the government has ignored farmers.
loading...
Funny that, isn’t it. I have yet to see any costings that support the claim that I will be, say, $3.30 out of pocket a week. And Susan, I don’t think you read to the end of the link. It went on to say:
“However, despite today’s concessions, independent research by the Australian Farm Institute over recent months has highlighted that additional costs from electricity and other indirect energy related sources will remain embedded in the carbon tax for all Australian farmers.
“This research shows that even with fuel excluded, the average Australian farmer will still incur an additional $1,500 a year in costs under a carbon price of $23 per tonne, eroding their net farm income by 2.4 percent.
“These costs will erode the competitiveness of the agricultural industry in the domestic and international markets on which we depend.
“As the recent Productivity Commission review highlighted, across the world, countries are developing climate policies that recognise the importance of agriculture and deliberately prevent any additional costs being added into their farmers’ businesses.
“For these reasons, the NFF and our members remain opposed to the carbon tax,” Mr Linnegar said.
“We also remain extremely concerned about the treatment of fuel. While we have today seen that agricultural fuel has been excluded from the carbon tax, we are concerned that heavy-vehicle fuel will only be excluded for a two year period, and that any future review of fuel excise could add additional costs into farm businesses.
“
loading...
There are costings available from the Treasury. Its a download PDF called Strong Growth, Low Pollution, Modelling a Carbon Price. Read it if you want to. I have.
“Independent research” conducted by AFI? Who conducted the research? Where is the evidence substantiating their claims? Still not available to me through the website or through you, nenebe.
The AFI itself claims that government has listened to farmers but then goes on to list their concerns and fears. Certainly, everyone is concerned but there is nothing to substantiate concerns or fears as the imminent or absolute reality of the future of farmers in Australia.
loading...
Susan, I am impressed that you have read all that. Both Overview and Report. I downloaded both and scanned through them as saw lots of tables and charts. Not many laymen will go and read through those reports. I would hope that the Government will provide a ‘ready reckoner’ to help the man and woman on the street really gauge what this means to them and their own personal budget. It is all very well to say that we will be out of pocket by $9.90 per week, but compared to what. Is it the classic two parent two kids scenario? That’s not me. There are six people under my roof. I work within a budget, I keep list all my expenditure and update that every month. I don’t get benefits of any kind. So the question for me is $9.90 compared to what?? What does $9.90 mean? The costings from the Treasury don’t tell me jack sh*t! I guess when we have a ‘block’ we choose not to see. I just don’t believe the Government and their modeling. You just don’t believe that the rural sector will cop a hit with this tax!
loading...
I believe that anything is possible.
That’s why I take the time to find out as much as I can before I give an opinion. Unlike the AFI which cannot substantiate their claims. That is scaremongering. And you are falling for it without any facts apart from your household budget nenebe.
Your household budget or the Treasury, the majority of Australian economists and peer-reviewed scientific literature? I take the latter view.
loading...
Up to the point that I understand it, I agree with carbon pollution.
I am also adamant that the populist scientists promulgating the science are more concerned with politics.
I do not agree with Australia taking a lead in the science. We are too small, the stance will make absolutely no difference, exporters and small businesses will be decimated.
Julia’s concern with carbon pollution has two bases: Stay in power at any cost and give in to the Greens (I guess the second meshes with the first!)
Australians will be a lot worse off after the hand-outs are spent and when the tax really bites(Read: Garrets’ insulation and solar schemes)
Tony: you are right to negate the tax, BUT you need to offer an alternative. You need a credible and easily-understood pollution mitigation plan.
loading...
A very good counter-argument FOR direct action on climate change, and it deals with the “jobs and money” problems that the opposition keeps citing
http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/australiar-and-the-fcking-idiot-dilemma/
also it’s really bloody funny!
Personally, I think anything that gets us acting quickly and well is worth any short-term pain we may experience. AND being unmarried, with no kids, renting, and living on $440 a week scholarship, I’m not actually entitled to any of the tax or centrelink benefits (cos I don’t actually pay tax, mwahaha) that come with the carbon tax, so i will just have to deal with the price rises in my electricity and gas bills, and alter my energy consumption behaviour.
Same thing happened with the GST – remember all the hooha about that when Howard said he wouldn’t do it before the election, then did anyway? It shits me that people who go “oh no, great big new tax boohoo” then turn around and say to the government, “why aren’t you providing more services/hospitals/school funding/renewable energy?” um, cos you need revenue from tax to do that…..
loading...
That is the BEST article Iv read in ages!! I recommend it highly!
loading...
I built a house (similar dimensions) before and after the GST.
The cost increased by $10K.
There’s only so many times you can suck up cost of living increases before it becomes unsustainable.
The carbon tax is the straw that’s breaking this particular camels back.
loading...
All the people commenting thy this Tax won’t be so bad and that they will only be out of pocket $10 a week , good on you!!
This tax will most likely put us out of business, a 4th generation family farm!!
So while you tell each other that you are making a huge sacrifice of a couple of hundred dollars think of the other people who are going to be significantly affected.
This tax isn’t just goin to affect our quality of life but every little thing in our life.
Just to point out I am in no way associated with any political party. I vote national and am in a very safe National seat.
loading...
Mel
I understand and do feel your pain I have some close friends who live on the land.
However, surely we have to do something? I understand that the economy in Australia is very city-centric and skewed against the farmers and yes this means huge pain and suffering for our agricultural sector.
But surely as someone who is completely reliant on weather and the environment to make a living you have to accept that we must as a society do more to protect the resources we have to ensure they are sustainable into the future. It saddens me that families who have been on the land for as long or longer as your family has could end up out of business but if we do nothing as a society do we not stand the risk that this could happen anyway?
Someone else has said that they will be out of business in their farm as well through a series of events including drought, floods, this tax and also the Murray-Darling Basin Scheme. I am not for one second even pretending to understand the pressures that a farming family are under but if the government of the day (regardless of who is in power) does nothing and the Murray runs out of water, Adelaide ends up with no potable water, and the earth is dead from salination (as is the case around the Murrumbateman region near the ACT) then aren’t they as guilty of killing off agriculture through inaction?
I live in Wollongong in a region where our dairy farmers are selling their cattle and leaving the land because of the Duopoly on milk and where many of our friends are wondering what is the future of their jobs as they work at the Steelworks and mines in the area. I believe that many many people are worried for the future of their jobs under this new proposed system.
However, just because there may be some pain and some jobs may go does that mean we should stand aside and do nothing? The farming families I know are some of the greatest environmentalists out there they have to be they have an enormous respect for the land and the life that it breathes not only into communities but also into the economy itself. But we all seem to be worried about ourselves and NIMBYism, its ok if everyone else cleans up their act as long as I don’t have to suffer financially.
Surely if the climate changes permanently and we have more drought and for longer periods and then when it rains they are flood seasons this will also have a permanent impact on your family, the farm and the business.
I truly do feel for you and I truly do hope that somehow someway something will be done to help the rural and agricultural sector however, for now isn’t something better than nothing?
Not an ALP member
loading...
Cath, I am a farmer,send me your carbon dioxide emissions, we luv em. It is fertiliser for our crops. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better our crops grow and the less artificial fert that is required. In controlled atmosphere agriculture operators pump CO2 into the Hot houses to raise the CO2 levels to three times atmospheric levels (1200PPM) achieving savings in time and water and increases in yield. Win/ Win. Time to spread the good news about increases in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, they far outweigh any perceived warming, which is not a problem. Increased temp means increased evaporation equals more cloud cover, more rain, less drought, I could go on and on…….
loading...
Murray I would in a heartbeat if it were that simple to get them from the city to you!
Question though don’t you only need rain at certain times? My inlaws out near Temora have had three seasons of crops destroyed by rain at the wrong times. One year it was on track for a bumper crop and I am so much of a city girl I pay little attention to what they grow except to know it is a beautiful field of yellow at one point in the process and the rain came and destroyed it all. If only we could have some sensible straight talking and cut the political garbage and rhetoric and get people together who really want action and change to sort this out then perhaps we could get somewhere!
I have no doubt that temperature increases to a point will have some great benefits for a % of the community but won’t things get to a tipping point? Where there is the potential for too much rain?
Isn’t it possible that some of the temp increases could have negative effects too?
For the record I am a not a greeny in any way! I wrote a big paper on this for my uni major in land management about 8 years ago now and I was then and still am now not convinced that this change is not part of a natural cyclic change. However, I am sure that human intervention in the process has definitely sped the process up.
Thanks for the food for thought!
loading...
This is good in theory but I have also heard of evidence that increased CO2 levels while increasing the efficiency in plants, decrease the benefits that animals receive when eating the plants. Protein levels decrease and toxins can also increase, meaning some foods may become poisonous, or we will just need to eat more to get the same benefits.
This topic was discussed on the science show last year, here is the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htm
loading...
Mel, can you please let us know why the Carbon Tax will most likely put your 4th generation family farm out of business?
loading...
I’m wondering the same thing? I’d like to know how that’s possible?
loading...
Quite simple really, just basic maths.
We get no subsidy from the goveernment. Our cost of production will increase due to an increase in the cost of electricity, fertiliser, transportation and processing costs. Farmers are price takers, not price givers – we cannot up the price of our produce because our costs have increased.
therefore if our cost of production goes up in a system that is pretty tight already we are in financial trouble.
Keep in mind that once a price comes onto fuel we are pretty well stuffed. Majority of farms are located sinificant distance from the Australian coast so in order to get inport and export 100-1000 of Km need to be travelled.
This carbon tax is a disaster for Rural Australia.
Households are talking about struggling to keep up with a couple of hundred dollars increase – we will be thousands of dollars out of pocket.
loading...
Hi Mel,
I’m also from rural Australia and I think we really need to do something about climate change, because we’ve seen droughts devastate the land and it will only get worse if we do nothing.
Also, fuel isn’t included so that will protect farmers to some extent. Also, the Independents Windsor and Oakeshott who are from rural electorates voted for it and there is a lot of incentives in the policy to pay farmers to capture carbon on their land, so I think it’s probably a win for farmers in my mind (otherwise I think the Independents would have opposed it).
Cheers, Sophie.
loading...
Sorry, fuel is included fro large trucks that are required to move farm inputs and outputs. That will be a real whack for rural and regional areas.
loading...
The independents need the govt to stay in power, they need to see out their term to get their benefits – super etc. Oakeshot knows he would not be voted in again if an election were forced, he is EXTREMELY unpopular in his electorate, so I fear that these independents have their own interests at heart not that of their electorate.
loading...
Thanks Mel, I’m a small business owner myself with rural connections but so far I don’t see the Carbon Tax having any effect on my business……yet.
Is bio-diesel an alternative/option for your plant and equipment?
Also, I’ve noticed quite a few big rigs & B-Doubles running LPG as well as Diesel…is this practical & could LPG replace Diesel in the future?
I’m not trying to be a smart arse, just a city boy trying to understand how my rural connections feel. Cheers.
loading...
In theory yes biodiesel does work, however, we are 100kms from our nearest “small” town, which does not supply biodiesel. If it was more readily available it could fit into the system.
A couple of years ago we crunched the figures to produce biodiesel ourselves but there was no way we could get the figures to work in our favour.
B-doubles and road trains running LPG is an option, that can be used more but the problem still exists that these trucks are working in such remote parts of Australia that they need to have a supply.
loading...
Cool, thanks for that info Mel !
loading...
Thanks for this Mel
but I am still struggling to understand why can’t you put up your costs. We are being told that big business and industry will put up their costs and this will be the flow on effect to us the end user. Because it isn’t a direct tax on the end user but we are more expected to wear increased costs from the passed on costs from big business.
An example of this is QF have said that they expect they will pass on an average of $3.50 per domestic airline ticket.
So why can’t the farmers who produce our food pass on the increased production costs. I do think that with a bit of better education the Australian public are not so stupid as to understand that costs have gone up for the producers so we will have to pay more.
My understanding of the modeling is that increased food costs have been factored in and I would have thought that the independents from the rural areas would have made sure there was something in it for the much needed rural sector.
Personally I think the entire debate would be better served if the city folk and rural folk stopped thinking of ourselves in terms of an us and them scenario and we started to think more of a common goal and shared pain for shared gain.
loading...
Hi Cath,
60% of Australia agricultural produce is exported, the price of these products is set by the world market and is almost entirely to do with supply and demand. There is no room for Australia farmers to demand more money because our costs have increased when we are cometing with farmers all over the world.
The figures that you see talking about the increase price of food after the carbon tax is introduced are mainly due to estimations in the increase of costs in the production chain, ie. Woolies putting up there prices to account for increased electricity. These big companies are going to maintain their profit margins, it is highly unlikely that the increase in any of these prices will make its way back to the farmer.
loading...
Thanks for that Mel it helps understand the concerns of the farming sector.
loading...
Mr Abbott, I think there’s a lot of ‘opposing for oppositions sake’ when it comes to you and your party and I think that’s really unfortunate as it blurs the public’s perspective of what you’re about. There’s a lot of slagging-off of the government and, I think, little else. This fear mongering is just feeding people’s insecurities and turning them into anti-government whingers, taking advantage of the general population’s ignorance. Most people don’t even really understand the seriousness of this and the need to act on a personal level.
I’m glad you’re having your say here but throwing around lots of figures and minimal solutions that are already happening, does not convince me you’d do a better job at helping to save our planet.
This is a very serious problem caused by dirty polluters – not just the big companies but us as consumers too. We need to look at using enormous amounts of dirty energy as a luxury, not a right. If it means we have to pay more for it then so be it – it wouldn’t be the only tax in history that exists to discourage bad habits – probably the most important though.
I feel we all have to do our bit and if paying more for dirty energy means we’ll use it less and find alternatives then how can that be a bad thing?. Yes, we should be planting more trees and developing cleaner energy solutions and building electric cars but, like you say, these things are happening anyway and should keep happening, but in conjunction with a carbon tax and ETS.
I am so sick of hearing journalists and opposition politicians going on about how “the PM said she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax before the election and now she is” – the goal posts changed significantly, she’s changed her mind. Get over it and stop talking about it – it’s history and it’s all starting to sound a bit petty now. Let’s not forget that you, Mr Abbott, have rapidly changed your mind about the very existence of climate change!
I’m glad she’s got the guts to do something about it. She’s not just trying to appease the general public for political purposes – she’s putting forward a policy that’s she believes is the right thing to do, despite copping an enormous amount of flack for it. Sorry but I’m not buying into the paranoid, whingey point-of-view that a vast majority of people have been sold, mostly by the opposition.
As for them spending money on advertising to sell this in? Well maybe they wouldn’t have to spend so much if the public weren’t being negatively brainwashed by the opposition.
Finally, I want to say that I get that people struggle and it’s hard to survive as it is and my comments are not directed at those who are rightfully worried and concerned. I’m not trying to belittle these concerns. I just don’t think we have a choice about this – we all need to do our bit and make it work somehow. It’s a global problem and I am more worried about my kid’s/grandkid’s future than whether I can afford to use my clothes dryer.
loading...
You are right Chocolate aeroplane, Mr Abbott does seem to be relentlessly negative, but really the governmnent has given him a lot of material to work with. Mr Abbott is really only dealing with what the Government keeps throwing up, rubbish…
loading...
You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, I’m led to believe. As you say, Mr Abbott can only work with the material that he is handed.
loading...
True… but please offer a positive alternative instead of this negativity and fear mongering!
Using the same argument we can say the government can only work with the world economy, environmental issues and natural disasters it was handed.
Let’s face it – a lot of the political argument is based around these topics – would the public ever be happy with the response to these circumstances when the main causes are beyond any government’s control?
loading...
Do you think your opinion annoys those that have differing opinions , yes ..funny that …!!!! just as you are sick of our opinions, we may sick of yours!!!
loading...
What a nasty response… I’m entitled to my opinion which has been cited just once in this forum. The only thing I said I was sick of was the endless banter about the PM’s change of mind rather than real constructive debate.
loading...
go chocolate – beats strawberry every time!!!
loading...
thanks ABV
loading...