Carbon Tax Rally

Is the rally to be held inside the telephone box outside Parliament house nick3? Lets see, you and 3 of your mates!

Can't wait to get there and campaign against a carbon tax.

I'm all for giving free hand-outs to huge multi-national companies, mostly foreign owned. I want the taxpayers of Australia to pick up the bill for carbon pollution directly. What is this country coming to when companies can't freely pollute the environment, rake off huge profits, and leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill.

Tax cuts, no way do I want them. I want the multi-nationals profits shipped offshore via investment dividends to Singapore Inc, Canadian and US pension funds and Norway's sovereign funds so they can live wholesome and enriched lives while leaving the earth scorched and our part of the world raped.

Tax cuts???? The biggest multi-national companies on the planet paying for the pollution their products create????? Solving some intractable problems with extraordinary effective marginal tax rates for the lowest income groups in society????? Providing incentives for renewable energy production when there is still uranium and coal to be dug up??????

Hell no, send our money offshore and make the PAYE income tax suckers bear all the costs.

Where do I sign.

do Parliament House have those extra wide parking spaces? I need to park my Ford F-750 somewhere. Are sheilas allowed to this ho-down? my wife want to bring her humvee

Ill bring my coal fired bbq we'll have a sausage sizzle,Ill even throw in a nice Fukushima spinach salad to go with it.
That'll fix those little commie greeny bastards!

I guess to accept the position of the speedo wearing sewer rat on how best to tackle climate change is to deny what: (1) most forward thinking countries and corporations around the world have already done to reduce their carbon use; (2.) expert climate change scientists and economists here and around the world are saying about how to transform economies away from carbon use; and (3.) the OECD is now saying about how Australia could best reduce its carbon use. It doesn't make sense at all until you add the political motive to the equation. Tony will chase a vote up any sewer hole.

floyd. didn't Julia stab Kev in the back, lie to the Australian public , do a secret deal with the greens ,all to get in government?There is nothing that julia or the labour party wouldn't do to get a vote. you'd have to be pretty gullable to think we won't be paying for this bullshit carbon tax, and for what? It certainly won't reduce the worlds pollution by any significant amount , seeing as we only produce something like .001 % of world pollution.Hey but if it makes you feel better

Carbon tax is just a scam to cripple the Australian way of life. What about the 178,000,000 indo's above us who are burning everything that doesnt float out to sea, what about the 1,300,000,000 indians doing the same thing? And we, this country are going to make a difference on a global scale? Not likley!

A Carbon Tax is a start, and once that is in effect it makes the fossil fuel using companies more accountable, and creates a more competitive market for renewable energies and technologies.

Once it is in place it can be tweaked and adjusted until we get the correct balance.

Any move away from fossil fuels is a good one, but I think the Australia Government still has to invest more in renewable energy, ie. solar/wind/geothermal.

Nuculear is the only way to go!

Would you like some Strontium 90 with that?

Please name the countries that have actually done what you are saying.

By: "nick3"

The whole European Union - all 495 million people in it - have been doing it since 2005. And then there's China - all fuck-knows-how-many-of-them - who have had a carbon tax scheme since 2008.

Please remember Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

By: "nick3"

On it's own and in small, stable levels, it isn't. When the levels in the atmosphere increase the insulating properties of CO2 send the stored temperature balance haywire.

For every expert to argue your case there is one to argue against.

By: "nick3"

The only 'experts' are working (not retired) climate scientists operating under standard peer reviewed research procedure. Very few of them deny AGM. Please note: Cardinal George Pell is NOT an expert. Tony Abbott is NOT an expert. Ian Plimer is NOT an expert (he is a fucking geologist!).

Why you are there please explain to me what a tax will do to change the temperature of the earth.

By: "nick3"

Create artificial impetus to steer the invisible hand of the market toward renewable energy.

I really do despair when I read comments like yours Nick. Here you are encouraging people to attend a rally you know not the slightest thing about.

nick3, grover & non-local ... see you all at the rally inside that telephone box.

Yeh non-local it is only fair that 178 000 000 (actually 220 000 000)indonesians are expected to stop burning wood trying to eke out a living, while your 1 trip to Indo emits more pollution in 2 weeks than their lifestyles do in a whole year.

Yes maybe they should stop eating all together so you can continue your "Australian way of life". Or maybe we just wait for them to initiate the reduction in CO2 because they are such an advanced country we could follow them, that would be nice wouldnt it.

Just listened to question time in Federal parliament.

The parliament was informed that the groups organising today's rally included: a citizen's and tax payers association that had 3 registered members; some coalition of game shooters who not only are opposed to a carbon tax they want Howard's gun laws abolished!!!; One Nation!!!! and some other groups with equally obscure agendas.

Nice to know the leader of the oppostion in Federal parliament associates himself with such people/groups. And some readers here thought I was being a little rough on our Tone.

Co2 - one part carbon, two parts oxygen. Interesting.
Whether you believe in man made global warming or whether you are skeptical , like myself, an avid weather watcher for over 32 years, the point is, Gillard lied. "There will be no carbon tax under my government". Howard was a mug,a bully boy, but at least he took the gst to an election. Julia should take it to the people. Simple.
This tax has nothing to do with "saving the world", but everything to do with returning the budget to surplus by 2013, just in time for the next election. That's why she wont call an early election. And MR flip flop Abbott can't call for a double dissolution because he wont get the numbers
How much will the price of a surfboard go up by.
Wetsuits? Even wax? Petrol for a roadtrip to Yamba?

For a moment I'll "play pro climate change". Instead of charging people via this dishonest tax, why not make solar panels TAX FREE. Windmills TAX FREE. Green energy GST FREE. Investment by foreign companies to develop renewable energy in this country TAX FREE, creating employment and leading the world? Make it CHEAPER to be green instead of EXPENSIVE no being green. Why? Wont get the budget into surplus by 2013, and Wayne Swan will have egg on his face. That's why.

Mel-anoma, Co2 is a bond between two Oxygen atoms and a Carbon.

I believe that you are hinting that Co2 adds twice as Oxygen to the atmosphere than Carbon?

When in fact the opposite looks to be the case seeing as the Carbon molecule takes 2 oxygens out of the environment...

Anyone who is against the Carbon Tax should read this very balanced and straight forward article. Seriously!

Click me

It will make much more sense to you.

mr 3, when is it that aussies really cared about politics? i think it shows in the fact that we are required by law to vote. still if you do vote your choice is not yours it can be whttled away by paty preferences so how does this effect ones surfing? by going to that sewer that is sydney and waving my hands around ? it takes away from the very essence that is surfing and spending less time in the water seriously affects your surfing , and at any rate who cleared this gathering of the masses without my consent? i am bigwayne, you are not, i will throw a tantrum mr 3 and your local break has been added to the list of g.m.r.c comps that are about start! (just incase you dont know gay mal riders club)

Front page of the Melbourne Age today "Tony Abbott, according to those around him, was a mite reluctant to take the stage at yesterday's anti-carbon tax rally on the lawns of Parliament for fear he would be painted as a leader of the loony fringe".

For balance I checked the Herald Sun. Strange, no mention of the rally at all. Odd that, the so called people's paper not mentioning a so called people's rally.

mel-anoma .... "Gillard lied". Gives us a break, yes she said no carbon tax (before the election) and yes she formed government with the greens; something abbott tried to do but failed ... so the world moved on and we will hopefully get a carbon tax. your comment about tax free services is interesting but i fail to see where the incentive would be for heavy pollution industries to reduce their carbon use? What about ending the tax exemption status for all religious groups to pay for carbon reduction ...... hell would freeze over before that happens but there would be plenty of billions in that little pot to pay for just about anything a greedy electorate could ever want.

No, Craig, what I am hinting at is Co2 is not a pollutant. If there was no co2 there would be no plant life. If there was no plant life, you and I would not be having this discussion.We'd be dead. One of the first things ANYONE learns in school science is that co2 is essential for plant life. Plants take in CO2, and expell O2.
It's not rocket science to figure out why there MAY BE a slight co2 imbalance in the world as we speak. "We" can tax all the carbon we like, but whilst the world continues to have it's "air filters" ripped up ( the amazon, se asian rainforests, Tasmanian old growth forests, clear felling, Phytoplankton used as fish farm pellets etc etc etc, it wont do anything exept return budgets to surplus, and keep us from worrying the real issue, the deforestation of the world.

Gday Floyd. Your point re' religion is valid. but the amount collected might pay for freighter load of chinese pink bats made from child labour, if you're lucky.
As green energy and green alternatives grows via tax free incentives, larger polluters will want a peice of the pie. Money talks, Lloyd.

And no, I wont give you a break, old fella. I voted for her and Rudd before her because I was sick of a decade of deceit from the coalition. If you wish to endorse lying in the highest office, then cheers. Just take it to the people in the form of an election. Simple as that.
And as for checking Rupert Murdocks Herald Sun for "balance", well, that's a laugh in itself, and secondly, you didn't look hard enough. Here's an article from TODAYS herald sun, for what it's worth; http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/abbott-seeks-a-carbon-election...

Cheers Floyd, and Craig, nothing like a good old fahioned debate. And ps - Ne Tassie is OFF THE RICHTER!!!

pps - Craig, that "balanced" article was written by a pro climate change pro tax author.
If that article is balanced, this one is , too. Cheers.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_II.pdf

Jeeeez, when I was a younger it was about 'nuclear', then the 'ozone layer'. (You have heard nothing about that for decades.) Then it's 'global warming' which now has a more pleasing name of 'climate change'.
The climate has always changed and will continue to. We've only been watching it for a period of about the size of a knat's dick on a rhino that the planet has been changing for. For every arguement for, there is the same against. The historical data is not pure proof because we weren't around to witness it.
Is it happening faster than normal? Quite possibly. Is it because of human behaviour? Quite possibly. Again, it is complicated speculation which everyone thinks they are an expert on. And before the rants start about science is proof, science has also been proven wrong many times too.

...and if it's right this time???

If it is right, whats going to happen. Is it complete and utter devistation? Is it all doom & gloom? How far will it go? I mean, a massive volcanic eruption could happen clouding the earth for years in volcanic ash resulting in a possible freeze. Now that would throw a spanner in the works wouldn't it.

Forget about the global warming scenario.

Too much Co2 is being pumped into the atmosphere, it's not good to nearly exhaust most of the worlds fossil fuels that took millions of years to form in 200 years.

Any change away from these pollutants is a good one and a carbon tax will help set this in motion.

As I've said in the other climate change thread, Australia has a great chance to make the renewable energy market its own, so hopefully both governments start investing more in this area of research.

sorry to be a semantic pedant but in order to lie there really needs to be actual knowledge by the person making the statement at the time that the statement is untrue. I think it's pretty difficult to say that Julia/labor always intended to introduce the tax at the time she made the promise in the election.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm no economist or scientist but won't an increase in costs to large polluters just be passed down the chain which won't change the level of pollution especially if the funds raised from the tax help people cope with the increased costs ie they just seem to be moving $$$ around without changing behaviour?

Yes, its all to do with playing politics, smoke and mirrors. "We've spent to much money, need to recoup. I know, dooms day will help them accept the tax." It doesn't matter which side of the political fence you sit, they all play the same game.
If julia was in opposition and tony was doing this, she would be carrying on the same way he is at present.
It makes f#*k all difference to me who's in power, its which personality you prefer. And lets face it, neither of them exactly ooze personality.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm no economist or scientist but won't an increase in costs to large polluters just be passed down the chain which won't change the level of pollution especially if the funds raised from the tax help people cope with the increased costs ie they just seem to be moving $$$ around without changing behaviour?

By: "pensky"

When I read things like this I realise how little a carbon scheme has been explained and, I guess, that's the governments fault. Although it should also be stated that certain people do all they can to spread misinformation and muddy the waters. Carbon schemes fall right into the very centre of the neo-liberal mindset so it baffles me why the Liberals automatically oppose it. But anyway...

We, as consumers, have a choice where we purchase things from. If we don't like the price offered by one supplier than we will move onto the next. This is Market Economics 101 and is the so-called 'invisible hand' of which Adam Smith wrote.

If you think you are paying too much for energy then source it elsewhere. The energy sector is no longer an oligopoly or state-backed cartel, there are independently owned operations and they are dipping their toes into every conceivable energy source. Testing what is viable, what is economical. It is a dynamic sector and anyone 'passing on the cost' to customers will find they don't have those customers for long. They will be losing profit and forced to adjust. Understanding it now?

And this is where a carbon scheme stimulates the sector to create new technologies. Don't let the right-wingers tell you it will instantly wipe out the carbon economy. Some of those new technologies will mean that carbon fuels are used more efficiently or disposed of more effectively so they incur the tax at a lesser rate. But yeah, it will also allow the green entrepreneurs to create viable alternatives. This last point is the exact reason the European Union has rushed headlong into a carbon scheme, and unlike us it was instigated by big business and the business councils!

Why? Because the country or region that cracks the code for alternative and renewable energy will be the powerhouse of the coming century. They will be the new Middle East but rather than ship black gold from under desert sands it will be technology that will be licensed and whoever is left behind will be paying hand over fist for it. It's almost guaranteed that Australia will be left behind. We are being sustained by minerals in the ground now but making absolutely no solid headway toward an inevitable future.

And all this talk about CO2 not being a pollutant, what Alan Jones-spun nonsense! Yes, it is naturally occurring, but so is methane. Gases become pollutants when they occur in such quantities that they jeopardise human life, as an increase in CO2 would.

The whole greenhouse affect argument really depresses me these days. Reminds me of the book Donald Horne wrote about Australia 'The Lucky Country?'. It was a book that questioned our luck and was written as a wake up call to an unimaginative nation. 'A country run mainly by second-rate people who share it's luck.' Just prior to publication the publishers forced Horne to remove the question mark in the title changing it from a question that challenged us to a statement that simple people championed.

And 50 years later we're still unwilling to ask questions or challenge ourselves....or even try to understand the very big issues of our time.

stunet, very well said.

Stu, as I mentioned above, the reason the liberals automatically oppose it is because they are the opposition. Even if Labour put forward a bill the Liberals once put forward previously when they where in power, they would still oppose it. It doesn't matter which side is in opposition, that is the way the "game" of politics is played.

It is a very good point you have put forward above. Regardless of my thoughts on global warming, I think renewable energy (solar wind etc) should be pushed further particularly in this country where we have an aboundance of.

Fitzy, it was only last year there was bipartisan support for an ETS.

Stunet, very well said2.

As I posted earlier to deny the introduction in a carbon tax is to deny what expert climate scientists here and around the world are saying. It denys what is already in place overseas. It also denies the economic opportunties that could come Australia's way, as discussed by stunet above.

The ALP wants a scheme that encourages polluters to reduce carbon use via a tax. The conservative party (no longer the Liberal party except for Turnbull and Hockey) want to pay polluters in the hope they reduce carbon use. I haven't read or heard of one economist that supports Abbott's plan but plenty support a tax on carbon.

This discussion is being coloured by politics. "She lied" is a constant theme. So fucking what. You either want action on the climate or you don't. At the end of the day the question is not about truth in government its about the environment and how you want your country to position itself in the world going forward - green and smart hopefully.

One final point about politics. Remember the mining tax debate? Remember the media action against the introduction of a super profits mining tax? Remember those ads about job cuts? And then do you remember the record profits announced by the mining sector a few months ago? Do those ads have a familiar ring about them in the current debate? So, where is the coal industry at the moment? Do you really think they are sitting back patiently waiting on the politicans to decide what form of carbon abatement sytem we will have? No they would be working very hard in the background to protect their commercial interests while letting others be their public face. For an insight on how big business decides what governments do I suggest you read Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life.

sorry, end of the year before.

Thanks Steve, because of the constant bullshit coming out of politicians mouths of ALL sides, I don't tend to listen or remember much of what they said last week, let alone that far back.

There is one thing you can gaurantee getting emotional debates over, and that is religion and politics!

Yeah Fitzy, I understand opposition politics and you're right, it'll never change. Although Turnbull was a goer in regards to a carbon scheme.

I rarely engage in climate change debates these days but here's a piece I wrote for my Surfpolitik column on Swellnet a while ago: www.swellnet.com.au/news/218-why-i-don-t-care-about-climate-change

It's a bit old but the points are still pertinent. The main thrust being that the science will never be resolved so we have to move the debate away from the scientific field and into the field of risk management. We have to be practical about climate change. And with the rest of the world moving ahead with new technology we are going to get left behind. For our sake we have to keep abreast of new technology because it is the future, irrespective of whether climate change exists or not.

Some random musings...

With issues such as climate change arising, issues that take much longer than four years (one term in government) to plan and solve, I'm of the belief that China, with it's one state system, is much better prepared to tackle them. Not saying we should swap our system for theirs but they are better geared to roll out large scale projects and infrastructure because there is no opposition to oppose them.

Even if you don't believe in climate change the transition away from carbon energy, which is inevitable, will take longer than four years and it will require massive infrastructure changes that our government will be mired in for years, bickering and playing power politics. We are not prepared, socially or politically, to keep up with the Great Leaps Forward that China is about to take, but we have to prepare ourselves. As far as I can see there's only one person in politics with a long term agenda, and yet this morning I past an old fellow holding a sign saying 'Save Australia: Put Greens Last'.

It drives one to despair...

But not despairing enough to stop more random musings...

Donald Horne, who wrote 'The Lucky Country' and who I quoted in the post above was once the editor of The Bulletin. When he took over the role the first thing he did was remove the tagline 'Australia For The White Man', The Bulletin being a backer of the White Australia Policy. Horne saw Australia's future and he perceived how Human Rights and migration would shape Australia. He copped a lot of criticism for removing the tagline but he was resolute in his stance. I fucken just wish we had people in politics - more than one - who could see the longview the way Horne could.

"I rarely engage in climate change debates these days ....."

Well I hope you reconsider that cause your making a lot of sense in a debate that even at the highest levels is fucking insanely polarised and infantile.

Agreed Steve. Stu, I have enjoyed your posts on this issue (and others to) as it has given me another perspective I haven't considered.

I try not to have too much input on political matters as, besides what I have already posted, it is a personal issue to each individual.

Thanks Stu - very helpful

"I rarely engage in climate change debates these days ....."

Well I hope you reconsider that cause your making a lot of sense in a debate that even at the highest levels is fucking insanely polarised and infantile.

By: "freeride76"

I don't have the energy Steve. It may sound lame but I've debated this from so many angles and points of view that it just wears me out. I studied Environmental Philosophy and for a few years was all over it, scientifically, philosophically, and politically (policy making).

And then, after ten years of forward thinking, you read young people like Nick3 and see our leaders moving us backwards and, honestly, it depresses me. I ain't a natural optimist, I need coffee for that, and I can't keep up the intake.

To lay it bare for a moment, I need to tackle this thing spiritually and that's a solo pursuit.

Kind of fucked up note to end on, eh?

It ain't as bad as all that, really...just get me another coffee!

So you're going to tackle climate change spiritually Stunet?

I hope you don't go looking to Cardinal George Pell for inspiration.

Sounds like you need some solo tube-time.

Stunet did put that well, but to be honest I dont think it is that complicated, you make something dearer, other stuff is cheaper and investment is encouraged elsewhere. As Stu said this is basic neo-liberal policy that liberals should support, so much so, that people like Clive Hamilton in the past have actually condemned the left (Labor or whoever)for adopting neo-liberal policies.

The problem as I see it is that those against doing anything, see it as a massive UN or government conspiracy, or it is just to raise revenue. There is no way Gillard would undertake this just to raise taxes, because it is political suicide, I think she has not got a hope in hell of being re-elected (well she might if Tony is still leader, only because he is so unpalatable). So that leaves the conspiracy, I thought the left were conspiracy nutters but now the right has taken over that role, just read yahoo7 forum posts.

The biggest problem I see is Labor turning this into a religious like debate over whether you believe in climate change or not. I am for the Co2 tax, because I believe man is probably contributing to climate change, but like the right, I believe there are some questions to the science, and to belittle people that question it, is counter-productive. The bigger issue is moving away from finite polluting resources, and overcoming the contrived power of the oil/coal industries (now there is a conspiracy!).

But this is a religious debate, whether you believe the christian (western) belief that god put earth here for us to toil, reap and ye shall sow, and all that crap, or you believe animist/buddhist/hindu (eastern) belief that you are part of a system that needs looking after. Now I know many will say I am no christian i just believe...... but like it or not, our whole western capitalist economic growth system has developed through a christian view of the world, even if we dropped the christian tag on the way.

I could not agree more with Stu's comments about the book The Lucky Country, I have not read it but I heard the same argument from some Canadian academic (John Ralston Saul)who compared Oz to Canada, basically saying we need to get over ourselves, because both countries are only major players because of our enoumous mineral wealth and small populations, not because of any significant contribution to culture or humanity, but the 'clever country' sellers will tell you different. But as people like Nik show, we do believe we are the centre of the universe and that comes back to our christian heritage or lens in which we see the world. (dont take it personal Nik i missed you in these debates, and someone has to challenge the sheep)

Nice one Roolf...

Great contributions from both sides of the debate. Well played gents.