Labor Blog

83 Comments

• 

  Rayzor from Malanda , Qld Thursday, 3 March 2011, 18:03

  This would be the fair price on Carbon. Since the earth Atmosphere has only a tincy wincy bit of carbon in it! Approximately 0.039% carbon dioxide therefore a price should be 0.039 cents a year. Cause in 2009 it was 0.038% and now it's 0.039% carbon dioxide.. And how is this insignificant amount can change the climate? Well, What it is supposed to do is trap the suns Radiation from leaving Earth. In all fairness this carbon will therefore stop harmful sun rays for entering as well, Which should result in a cooler planet, but that's not happening. Climate scientist also says we're causing climate change. Wrong! Our input is small and these climate scientist know that! That's why they over exaggerated the results. Nasa also says Super Nova's billions of light years away has an effect on our cloud formation by charging the molecules in clouds.(Long story look it up). Maybe they are right. But I do believe the sun has almost 100% effect on earth climate and how it changes. Why can't the Governments Just tell the truth. Maybe their is something bigger going to happen and they need to get all the money they can!
  And no Julia is no Colonel Gaddafi. She's worst. She's the Devil. and Toni Abotts the Goblin her pet!

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Wednesday, 2 March 2011, 02:02

  @ nikkojii
  Hi.
  You had me for a moment there as I didn't remember providing a list in my response.
  
  I did post this on one of the other threads:
  
  More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  
  If that's what you meant.
  
  Try this one: Actually the address is so long the quickest way is to google 'us senate list of climate scientists' and pick U.S.Senate committee on environment and public works and up will pop a list of scientists who disagree with the IPCC, some of whom were part of the project, and a large number of climate scientists, real ones, who have had innumerable peer review papers published.
  
  So it's not comment from pseudo scientists. The list starts a little while back but comes forward. The comments are food for thought IMHO. Obviously this presents viewpoints that are against.
  
  It is worth noting that the USA House of Reps voted on the 20th February to stop funding the IPCC. Which actually doesnt necessarily happen over there until passed further up the chain.
  
  
  

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Tuesday, 1 March 2011, 10:01

  @Chris1948 – Thanks for your response. After reading it I realised that your denial of climate change must be based on /something/ so I searched for scientists denying human induced climate change.
  
  I found a long list of them and some had some VERY impressive names on it.
  
  I was shocked. I sat there wondering whether you and the other sceptics could actually have been right after all. But I am stubborn so I started looking at the references for each of these scientists and discovered that :
  
  1. Not one of their ‘conclusions’ came from a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL,
  2. Most came from sources such as ‘The Wall Street Journal’,
  3. And one came from the Idso family run newsletter whose credentials were ‘agriculture’ and ‘climate’???
  
  Here are some I jotted down :
  
  Richard Lindzen – Wall Street Journal and San Francisco Examiner.
  
  Garth Partridge – Conor Court Publishing
  
  Antonio Zichichi – Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
  
  Joel Achencbach – The Washington Post
  
  The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change – Sherwood B Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso.
  
  Apart from the Idso Family who are just so bogus they don’t count, none of the others had published their findings in scientific journals which makes me wonder why not? If they had real evidence to back up their statements why weren’t they doing it where other scientists could /test/ their findings????
  
  By contrast ALL of the climate science they are scoffing at is published in peer reviewed journals.
  
  So I realised that it all boils down to trust.
  
  I trust the findings of scientists who actually put their evidence where their mouths are rather than scientists who make statements with NO PROOF.
  

• 

  Rayzor from Malanda , Qld Monday, 28 February 2011, 22:28

  I've come to the conclusion that we cannot stop climate change. Look what happen to Venus. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus
  
  As I thought all along it's the sun! It's always has been the sun!
  http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun
  
  Here are some Facts and what Earth will look like in the future without mankind's input!
  
  The earth spins faster than Venus. Venus spins 243 Earth days to spin once on its axis and Earth is 23.934 hours. Which makes the Gravity lower than earths.
  Equatorial Surface Gravity of Venus is 8.87 m/s2 and earth is 9.80665 m/s2 which lower gravity means the Venus cannot hold it's molten core together. The earth will also slow down as it gets older.
  
  Also Venus is 108,209,475 km from the sun and Earth is 149,598,262 km from the sun that's 41,388,787 km Difference and the sun is forever growing larger ever so slowly and any bit of small change can have a big effect here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Life_Cycle.svg Shows the life of a sun.
  
  The future of the planet is closely tied to that of the Sun. As a result of the steady accumulation of helium at the Sun's core, the star's total luminosity will slowly increase. The luminosity of the Sun will grow by 10% over the next 1.1 billion years and by 40% over the next 3.5 billion years. Climate models indicate that the rise in radiation reaching the Earth is likely to have dire consequences, including the loss of the planet's oceans.
  
  The Earth's increasing surface temperature will accelerate the inorganic CO2 cycle, reducing its concentration to levels lethally low for plants in approximately 500 million to 900 million years. The lack of vegetation will result in the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere, so animal life will become extinct within several million more years. After another billion years all surface water will have disappeared and the mean global temperature will reach 70 °C
  
  Composition of Venus atmosphere:
  ~96.5% Carbon dioxide
  ~3.5% Nitrogen
  0.015% Sulfur dioxide
  0.007% Argon
  0.002% Water vapor
  0.001 7% Carbon monoxide
  0.001 2% Helium
  0.000 7% Neon
  trace Carbonyl sulfide
  trace Hydrogen chloride
  trace Hydrogen fluoride
  
  Composition of Earths atmosphere:
  78.08% nitrogen (N2)[3]
  20.95% oxygen (O2)
  0.93% argon
  0.038% carbon dioxide
  About 1% water vapor (varies with climate)
  
  Venus does not have any trees which results in High carbon and being closer to the sun and it rotates slowly.
  
  Is the Tax going to fix this?

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Monday, 28 February 2011, 15:28

  @ Laurie4
  Quelle horreur!!
  Channel 9 Sunday 27th February, Quote ' effectively operate as a carbon tax' Unquote~Ms J. Gillard.
  Oh my! What to do!
  
  and @ nikkojii
  Forgot to mention that Agriculture, the biggest emitter in Australia~ exempt~too hard.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Monday, 28 February 2011, 15:28

  @ nikkojii
  A belated response to your hypothetical.
  In short no.
  Parliamentary Labor, in enough trouble already from it's own members simply throws the party values on the scrap heap.
  The more I read and research, the more obvious it becomes to me that such a scheme has plenty of costs and no benefits.
  Whilst I can see the noble part of security as far as environment goes for our children's and our children's children the fact is that unless all the worlds emitters join hands and sing kumbaya ( sorry no camp fires allowed ) not one thing that Australia does will make one iota of difference, even if one accepted the AGW/alarmist rhetoric.
  
  Also it is necessary to read the words regarding compensation very carefully:
  
  "The Government will then use every cent raised to:"
  Assist families with household bills;
  Help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy;
  Renewables to replace existing energy generation.
  
  Effectively then, we then pay the costs of business for mitigating emission.
  We pay, probably the existing generation providers to look at the Wind, Wave and Algae methods.
  And a promise to 'assist' household expenses, means tested.
  
  Using the Victorian State concession method of 17.5% rebate for an eligible pensioner as an example, whose bill was $100, who now has to pay $200(for simplicity's sake) there's a lot of dollars to be found. You do the math. Is that the sort of assistance intended?
  
  We need to know up front.
  
  People say well, the price is going up anyway: I say what an excellent illustration why essential services should have remained in Government hands.
  
  Not such a short response, sorry, but my own philosophy for this is to go with Juvenal the chap that wrote the 'bread and circuses' line.
  He also wrote that it is every citizens civic duty to rail against dim witted and lazy politicians (senators in the forum). I agree
  
  

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 18:27

  @Chris1948 -smiles- I guess we've both proved our credentials. Pity we're so different in how we see the world.
  
  Let me ask you a hypothetical : if Labour actually grew a backbone and ensured that the 'little people' really were protected ...would that change your thinking?
  
  I mean I know you don't believe in climate change per se but would you be prepared to go along with a price on carbon as a form of insurance for the future IF it really was big business that paid the price instead of ordinary people?

• 

  David_Etcell Sunday, 27 February 2011, 17:27

  I am so sick of paying the price for the actions of industry. I have been a Labor voter my entire adult life, but that stops now. Hell, once the Liberal party realise everyone hates Tony Abbott (and replaces him as party leader), I might start voting for them. I think Julia Gillard is doing a fantastic job of making sure Labor stay out of government for another 12 years.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 16:27

  @nikkojii
  There is absolutely no question from me about your credentials~ we are all entitled to our opinion, this is your country, so I am sorry if you felt that was the case.
  
  I too came from another country.
  
  I was raised on a rural property. My parents, immediately post WWII also knew how to make do with very little and with what was available.
  
  Very much stronger I feel than the later generations in coping with adversity.
  
  I too had educational opportunity in my homeland and overseas.
  
  I worked hard and in fact would still be doing so in my chosen field if I had not been confined to a wheelchair in recent years.
  
  I made from my work a good income and managed to put a little aside and manage to live comfortably enough but without any extravagant frills.
  
  I have never purchased a new car.
  
  My Toyota Camry which is a couple of years younger than your Corolla I purchased about 5 years ago.
  
  I purchased the PC a few years ago, and with a little help from a colleague with IT savvy manage to keep abreast of developments. I could not currently afford to purchase outright a new one. Obviously I have an internet connection.
  
  Yes you may see 'ordinary' men and women going to the pub/tab/pokies.
  
  I also see lots of people drinking lattes.
  
  Kid's in some circumstances do go hungry in Australia, and yes there are plenty of homeless people right here in Melbourne, and probably right in your area also.
  
  If you say that it's all about priorities, we will agree to disagree that placing a burden
  on the average person in this country is the right thing to do.
  
  Make no mistake that is who will be paying for it directly or indirectly, despite the hollow promises from my party.
  
  BTW thanks for the website addresses. I agree, and I'm sure most Victorians particularly would agree about Hazelwood, although I might generally have reservations about the veracity of information coming from the WWF.
  
  The point is what do you do. Turn the power off?
  
  Get the sacked work force to make hair shirts for the Greens? Or follow the plan in place to phase it out?

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 15:27

  @Chris1948 - I hear what you're saying and I hear the underlying question about my credentials for supporting the need for change. I'll try and make this brief.
  
  I came to Australia as a refugee in 1957. We arrived with the clothes on our backs and one very small teddy bear. That's it. Not even a suitcase. I was 14 before I got my first /new/ dress - i.e. it hadn't come from an op shop. My parents ended up owning their own house but never owned a car. I was well fed and well educated but never more than comfortable. I have more money now but I have never owned a new car. My 1988 Toyota Corolla was 5 years old when I bought it and I'm still driving it.
  
  What make and model are you driving?
  
  You are obviously well educated too and you can afford to have a pc and an internet connection so I imagine that you're not homeless either.
  
  None of the people posting on this forum are going without the necessities of life.
  
  Oh, and just for the record I'm not a hippy and I'm not a Green either. I don't belong to any political party and I don't work for any political parties or any company in any way affiliated with a political party. I just happen to know how much you /can/ do with very little.
  
  I'm not expecting the whole world to live according to my priorities but I'm not swayed by the argument that kids will go hungry here in Australia. Not when I see ordinary men and women going to the pub every Saturday night or gambling on the pokies or lining up outside the TAB.
  
  This whole debate is about priorities. Mine are very clearly different to yours.
  

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 14:27

  @ nikkojii
  OK I appreciate what you are saying re the different scientific information.
  
  There is a lot available.
  
  In reality though it is not helpful that some on this blog scoff at real scientists that have a differing point of view on the issue of climate change/Co2.
  
  Why, even in one of your own posts the word 'pet' cropped up, admittedly in a different scenario.
  
  With regard to the main point of this thread the ___(Laurie4) or the CPT(juliebbbb), whatever, the outcome of this if put in place is more than 'losing very little' in the context of the here and now.
  
  I obviously do not know your family's circumstances but ask you to consider the outcome for sons and daughters and their children of being thrust into penury whilst watching our two speed economy go down the gurgler as far as the hoi polloi are concerned.
  
  And personally I don't want to be part of a wider menace to the worlds poor by following a morally bankrupt AGW and Greens agenda in this country.

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 14:27

  @Chris1948 - when you asked for specific polluters and industries my mind went a blank. I'd been reading/hearing about so many industries with regard to pollution it was a case of 'oh my god, where do I start?' The following links are NOT comprehensive but they are a beginning. If you want more I'll be happy to oblige.
  
  Hazelwood Power Station - Victoria : http://www.wwf.org.au/news/n223/
  
  I knew Hazelwood was bad but I had no idea it was this bad. Thanks for making me do some more in depth research.
  
  AIGN is a list of all major industry groups. Their involvement in the climate change debate makes interesting reading. Scroll down the page to see the list of who's who.
  
  http://www.aign.net.au/membership?HPSESSID=0b251c3f17d1fccc74d9816ba5ec9daf

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 13:27

  @ Chris1948 - re co2. As I've said before I'm not an expert on any of these issues but I am interested in the science side of things. When I read your post re Devil's Advocate I did a bit of searching.
  
  http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
  
  This article addresses the most important issues you raised re co2. I guess we could spend the next god knows how long dueling between your sources and mine but I believe erring on the side of caution is always a good thing.
  
  If my scientific sources in support of climate change are proved wrong we will have lost very little in the grand scheme of things. Australians will have tightened their belts for a few years but nothing like what they did during WW2.
  
  However if your scientific sources are proved wrong and climate change turns out to be as bad as I think it will be then Australians are going to be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Our children and grand children are going to think that the food rationing etc during WW2 were a picnic by comparison.
  
  And they are going to curse our generation for seeing the writing on the wall and doing nothing about it.
  

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 13:27

  So. nikkoj11, I am certain that all sorts of pollution per se is a problem here, but who are these large polluters to whom you refer?
  
  Names?
  
  Industries?
  
  

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 13:27

  argh....... I'm so sorry for raising this red herring about the US car industry.
  
  I never meant to imply that GM and Chrysler went bust because of CLIMATE change. What I meant and totally failed to communicate was that they went bust because of their resistance to CHANGE in general.
  
  And the example I was trying to show was that resistance to /change/ has disastrous consequences in the long term.
  
  Here in Australia all the large polluters are just as resistant to change as GM and Chrysler. They do not want to reduce their profit margins by investing in costly R&D. They do not want to reduce their profit margins by investing in HUGELY expensive changes in how they produce their products.
  
  Even the industries that accept climate change as real and accept that change will be necessary do not want to be the first to start spending all that money because that would make them highly uncompetitive in the short term.
  
  When you think about it this is a very human way to react. We live in the short term and find it very hard to plan for the long term. That is why ordinary people are as resistant to change as industry. No-one /wants/ to have their standard of living reduced. We're not masochists!
  
  And that's the heart of the problem : the tipping point for climate change is still in the future so all we have to go on are the warnings of scientists and scientists always talk about probabilities because that's how science works. So when they warn about climate change they /sound/ as if there is room for doubt. And then someone from industry with a vested interest in keeping things the way they are trots out one of their pet scientists to say it's all bunk.
  
  And what we, the public, don't know is that many of these pet scientists aren't even in the climate science discipline or they may be in the discipline but don't publish in the journals where other scientists can look at their work and debunk it. All we know is that they are scientists too so they must know what they're talking about. It's the same conn the Tobacco Industry pulled to avoid taking responsibility for lung cancers caused by smoking their products. It took 30? years or more to prove that they were lying *****s. With climate change we don't have 30 years or more to see through the smoke screen.
  
  So here we are, still divided about whether slow, gentle change is necessary or not. And while we mess around, putting off the inevitable and waiting for 'proof' that we can all accept, climate change is marching on.
  
  We will get that proof but by the time it's staring us in the face it'll be way too late to do anything about it. The problem will have become so big that there really won't be anything that humans can do to stop it happening. We will have missed the boat and we will have to live with the consequences. And it won't be pretty.
  
  Just like GM and Chrysler, we in the west think we are too big, too secure, too powerful to be affected. Sure some strange little islands in the Pacific may get drowned but it won't affect /us/. Sure low lying parts of Bangladesh and India will get inundated but what's that to us? Sure people in the developing nations will face massive food shortages but we'll still have plenty of food. Sure there'll be some disruption but it won't affect us.....Right?
  
  Wrong.
  
  Climate change is going to hit Australia hard and fast because we are uniquely vulnerable. Most of our populations live on the thin strip of relatively fertile land between the sea and the range of mountains that run all the way down the east coast. We really do have most of our eggs in one basket and disaster is part of the Australian reality. But climate change will make all our normal disasters just so much worse.
  Even if the 11 year drought was a natural occurrence. Even if the flooding and cyclones we just experienced are natural occurrences. Even if the Black Saturday bushfires are natural occurrences how OFTEN they happen will change thanks to global warming.
  
  Disasters that used to happen once in 100 years will start happening at 50 years intervals and then 25 year intervals and the damage they do will be greater. It will become harder and harder to recover from them. And it will cost more. Much more. Not only will we have to worry about ourselves we will also have to face the very real problem of taking in more and more climate change refugees. These will not be people fleeing man-made disasters like war, these will be people who have literally had their homes permanently drowned by rising sea levels. Things will change for the worse and everyone in Australia will have to adjust to a much lower standard of living.
  
  If that adjustment happens suddenly it will be worse than anything we can imagine. I may or may not see it because I'm 58 and don't expect to be around in 50 years time but my daughter will have to live through it and her children and their children. That's why I'm trying so hard to ensure that the change is gradual and relatively painless.
  
  The US /may/ be big enough and wealthy enough to fluff around for a while but Australia isn't. That is why we have to be amongst the front runners in tackling climate change. For us it's not about 'punching above our weight' or silly things like that. It's about long term survival in a country that has always been hostile to humans.
  
  Accepting a carbon price now will mean we are taking the first small step towards controlling the speed and severity of the change that is coming.
  
  p.s. Just want to add one more small point : while doing some research over 10 years ago I got my hands on some of the old MMBW contour maps of Melbourne and I coloured in those areas that were only 1-3 metres above sea level. I was shocked at how much of Melbourne would become uninhabitable by just a small rise in sea levels. And then there are all those coastal communities perched right next to the beach.
  
  I don't want to be a scare monger but Australia will suffer.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 12:27

  @ Laurie4
  Well no actually.
  
  public seems to have two opinions if you compare what was in the post at 8.27 and that which is written on the, apparently for you unreadable (DT and all that), next article.
  
  I agree with the comments made on the latter.
  
  From my viewpoint public is perfectly entitled to express his opinion.
  
  At the present I don't know which is the real one
  
  I await some decision, but In the meantime here's a task for you.
  .
  
  Task: Locked in room with the above participants you have to correctly identify which will call alarmist disinformation climate change rhetoric a crock.
  
  Participants:
  Ross Garnaut: Professor of Economics, author of Climate Change Review, has been a director of Lihir Gold and OKTedi mining. Has family farming interests.
  
  David Bellamy OBE., BSc., PhD., Hon; FLS,. DSC., DUniv., C.Biol., FIBiol., FRIN.: Botanist, environmental consultant and activist/campaigner.
  
  Tim Flannery: Professor at Macquarie University. Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist. Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, Has sometimes controversial views on shutting down conventional coal fired power stations for electricity generation.
  
  

• 

  Laurie4 from Albany Ck , Qld Sunday, 27 February 2011, 11:27

  Public has nailed the issue and you have placed yourself firmly in the camp of the major polluters, Chris.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 10:27

  @ lordnelson 101
  Well I was with you on you comments on Detroit and the American vehicle industry until the end of the third sentence.
  
  The troubles in that industry during the first decade of this century and the subsequent filing for bankruptcy under the American chapter 11 and emergence from the reorganization had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.
  
  Certainly it was the GFC, the American sub prime mortgage fiasco and credit, plus fuel costs and subsequent loss of sales that led to both General Motors and Chrysler seeking protection in the first place.
  
  The Government did in fact provide the funds to allow these companies to continue operation and thus keep many thousands in a job whilst this reorganization took place.
  
  Both of these companies have emerged from the chapter eleven, a ‘new’ GM corporation and a Chrysler controlled from Europe.
  
  Both have had to/are paying back the billions to the Government as part of the chapter 11 arrangements as the money was a loan, not a gift.
  
  Both are selling a wide range of petrol powered vehicles ( Americans like Chevy’s and Buicks, Dodge like many go for an ‘Aussie’ Holden here) and a smattering of hybrid cars. The Japanese companies that manufacture in America offer the hybrids we are familiar with as well as their normal range.
  
  The recent oil discoveries in USA areas, as they dwarf some of the Middle Eastern supplies ensure the supply of fuel for many, many years to come.
  
  Obama made no demands re clean cars, the requirement for emission control, as here, already in regulation.
  
  There is absolutely no connection to climate change
  

• 

  Juliebbbb from Merrylands , NSW Sunday, 27 February 2011, 09:27

  After listening to right wing radio talkback all this week, I implore all members of the Labor party to use the term 'Carbon Polluters Tax' instead of Carbon Tax. There is a relentless campaign initiated by these corporate mouthpieces to confuse the public about what this tax is really about. It is essential that the average person grasps this important concept. If you keep reinforcing that the tax is on carbon polluters, then maybe we can stop the scare campaign to a certain extent.

• 

  public Sunday, 27 February 2011, 08:27

  There will be not winners in debates that are fueled by ideologies rather than anything ressembling research and knowledge and evidence. What must be tested is not the veracity of evidence that has been collected over a period of some fifty years, quite a long experiment, too long and experimenmt if you ask me.
  
  What needs to be tested is which vested interests are now behind the increased bluster of the skeptics and the skeptic backed research; or should we say computer enhanced modelling based on the same techniques they argue are false. A baffling stance even for someone of middling intelligence.
  
  
  Who benegits if we do nothing to tackle Climate Change, climate issues and pollution; who would be the big pay checks recievers if we do nothing? The pulluters, naturally and if we examine things even more closely, the companies owned by said polluters and their multi billion dollar enterprises. Let us not fool ourselves in thinking that we are all or some in part free of their influences., but some are more influenced than others and this often shows in government policies, social policies and community values.
  
  
  The first claim is that by doing something it will cost jobs. The argument to counter this is that we did nothing and it still cost jobs; the wealthy are now posting bigger and bigger profits by employing fewer anbd fewer people. Doing nothing will cost jobs as well in the short term, but reskilling much of the workforce to fully develop energy technologies currently held back will pick up some of the short fall.
  
  It is also argued that this is just another big tax. I am not sure how you get polluters to day anything unless you tax them. How many polluters would do anything is all a government said 'would you please stop doing that'
  
  
  The main reason we will hear a great deal of negativity about the Carbon Tax is because the mega wealthy are threatened, the people whoi have accountants ensure they do not pay tax at all, while the average Australian does. Every Australian average wage earner pays more in taxes than many wealthy people ever will - so please be aware of this.
  
  
  We either start doing this now, or we do nothing again and allow the alternative government to continue to syphon Australia's wealth out of the country; something John Howard did to great effect.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 03:27

  @ nikkoj11
  No, I don't consider myself as the 'Devils Advocate'.
  
  Yes I learnt about photosynthesis a long long time ago.
  
  Co2 and proportions? As far as I know there are no facts linking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming
  
  Co2 as a pollutant?. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either.
  Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.
  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
  
  Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this fact.
  
  No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes and to the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
  
  Laurie will tell me where I have gone wrong.
  
  Unless you do.
  

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Sunday, 27 February 2011, 02:27

  @ Laurie4
  And there you go again.
  Too many questions for you?
  
  Have another look at my post at 19.26, especially the bit about reading and believing.
  
  Rationalise whether your bluster in response is an answer.
  
  Concentrate.
  
  And Laurie, I notice that you havent commented on the post after this.
  
  Possibly, even though it is by our Prime Minister, the Parliamentary leader of our Party, (unless of course you are a mole for the Greens) it is because it is a reprint of an article in the dreaded multi-billionaires newspaper, the DT.
  
  On second thoughts, it probably would be deleterious to your health to read the number of comments, obviously by stooges for some other force, that kind of don't align with your immovable position, me included.
  
  Actually, I'm starting to picture you as the type that has succumbed to worship at the altar of AGW cult and thus feels the need to be strident and critical of anyone who may baulk at the very questionable 'science' driving their testament.
  
  Am I wrong?
  
  And did I say that the polls were in Rupert's wrappers?
  I don't think so.
  
  I haven't interviewed the thousands of respondents yet to see whether they should have been allowed to participate.
  
  I'll get back to you.

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Saturday, 26 February 2011, 23:26

  I've mentioned INSURANCE. Warren Buffett has assessed the odds for everything insurable, and probably has no peer in the field of risk.
  I was surprised at his assessment of the probability of Nuclear Weapons being used any time between now and 50 years. It was 10%.
  I would think that the risk of Climate Change is something we have to try to reduce.
  Not to try is to give up.
  To get hung up on whether Gillard lied is a cop out.
  The alternative is Abbott, we cant wait for him to change his mind.

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Saturday, 26 February 2011, 23:26

  Nikkojji; Your Detroit analogy is a good one. The Republicans are our liberals both in a time warp. Detroit needed massive injections of funds in the billions to stay afloat after the GFC. They now make hybrid electric vehicles and small cars funded by tax payers, with no certainty of survival. The Chinese have a company called BYD of which Warren Buffett has a 10% stake, they lead the world in hybrid motor vehicle technology. Their factory is 15 kilometers long and the only components not housed in the factory are windscreens and tyres. Obama said to Detroit here's the money, but you must make clean cars that don't pollute. Now General Motors went broke rather than embrace climate change.
  The Chinese wanted to lead the technology. So this scenario applies to everything in Australia, do we want to go broke over 20-30 years or do we keep up. Don't get me started on skills.

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 22:26

  @Chris1948 - mmm...are you playing devil's advocate by any chance?
  
  On the off chance that you're not....yes the plants need co2 for photosynthesis and yes it's a part of our atmosphere but the problem lies in the proportions. Too much of a good thing and all that. Like too many cream cakes...or too much rain.....

• 

  Laurie4 from Albany Ck , Qld Saturday, 26 February 2011, 21:26

  There you go again. Believing what you read in the multi-billionaires' media .
  
  The polls are not to be believed. You can declare yourself as politically unaligned anytime you like. That doesn't make it so. .
  
  You are wasting your time if you are arguing that global warming is a scientific fiction, and to my mind such an unsubstantiated obviously political assertion puts you firmly in the camp of Abbott devotees.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 19:26

  @ Laurie4
  Actually I read a lot of newspapers both here and from overseas and I wholeheartedly agree with you re Rupert's Rags.
  
  But in order to avail myself and make myself as widely informed as possible so as to form my opinion ( balance is in the eye of the beholder) I do read them.
  That way I can determine who is talking drivel.
  
  A loose translation of a Japanese proverb : 'If you believe everything you read, better not read.' I think that would cover what you are saying and I agree.
  
  The comments that I described earlier however, were not an opinion piece but a verbatim report of what was said.
  
  If the actual Labor people and the Greens are using the T word then in your effort to stop the ___ word, I respectfully suggest that you may be pushing unmentionable objects up hill.
  
  With a toothpick.
  
  However seeing it means so much to you, I give you my personal guarantee that i will not say ___ anywhere outside of this blog.
  
  And Laurie, I notice that you have formed an opinion regarding the role of Co2.
  If you are convinced somehow that it's all down to Co2 to 'save' the planet, despite the fact that without Co2 we die, nothing I or several other of the posters on this blog say will convince you otherwise.
  
  Or am I wrong?
  
  I am one of those unconverted people, including a huge number of politically unaligned Australian's if the polls are to be believed, who unlike the warmists think that a ___ or an ETS is a crock.
  Convert me.

• 

  Laurie4 from Albany Ck , Qld Saturday, 26 February 2011, 18:26

  Chris, I make a habit of never believing all I read in a newspaper, particularly if it is Murdoch-owned. Murdoch is open about his support of the Tories.
  
  If you have a better way than an ETS to cut CO2 emissions and help save the planet, now is the time to let everyone in on it.
  
  If you are indeed Labor, cease using Abbott's term '"tax" to describe the "price" that the government is putting on carbon to establish the ground rules for the ETS.
  
  "The Tories are hitting the PM over the head with 'Tax" , not "Price" so they think the use of the term is helpful in their scramble for power.
  
  A "dyed in the wool Labor" would stop helping them in their drive to install the Mad Monk as PM.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 17:26

  @ Laurie4 Nothing like a good 'ad hominem' when all else fails I suppose.
  
  Sorry to debunk your theory but dyed in the wool Labor, actually.
  
  And not so much of the ex or the young, if you can see your way clear.
  
  Although I did raise a chuckle at your description of Tone's possible book.
  
  As long as it's not you who's doing the ghost writing.
  
  Apropos your speech about tax earlier maybe you have the time to check today's print media in which both Labor and the Greens are saying that the (tax) is less expensive than an ETS.
  
  Which could be a bother having to explain if we change to one after the (tax).
  
  No one said why we need either, which would be a helluva lot cheaper altogether and obviate a heap of angst.
  
  PS. have you heard the Michael Feinstein version of that George and Ira Gershwin song? ( 1937) It's a hoot.
  Cheers.
  C.
  

• 

  Laurie4 from Albany Ck , Qld Saturday, 26 February 2011, 17:26

  Chris1948
  
  Having read a few of your blogs, you seem better suited to an ex-young Liberals site.
  
  Your plagarism of Gershwin's? tune belongs in the Tony Abbott handbook of "How to rave when you haven't taken your medication".

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 16:26

  @Chris1948 - I suspect we may have memories of the same era... Anyway, the present political climate is...different. Vision has been replaced by focus groups and I don't think any politician or political party would get away with such 'strong' government. I doubt that a Howard or Keating would last long in this climate and we all know what happened to Turnbull and Rudd. So I'm going to stand by what I said about some things being 'too hard'.
  
  I will grant you that the demise of Detroit was much more complex than I made it out to be and I will admit I don't know enough about it so - all mention of Detroit retracted.
  
  I do however believe my example of the US car companies was valid. Obviously there was an awful lot going on behind the scenes but they /were/ dinosaurs and they did collapse and that was indirectly caused by the governments of the day /not/ forcing them to change. So I am still firmly convinced that change is a good thing in the long run. I will however try to pick better examples next time!
  
  
  I digress though.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 15:26

  @Laurie4
  
  "You say tomato and I say tomato,
  You say potato and I say potato.
  Tomato, tomato, potato, potato
  Lets call the whole thing off"

• 

  Laurie4 from Albany Ck , Qld Saturday, 26 February 2011, 14:26

  The PM made a big mistake by prevaricating about the terms carbon price or carbon tax. She said before the election that she would not introduce a carbon "tax" The proposal is not for a tax, it is for a price on carbon. Two different animals. You pay a price for goods or services. In this case users will pay a price for the carbon they use as a prelude to the government establishing a value at which carbon can be traded.
  
  A tax would involve the government simply collecting monies ad infinitum from companies and individuals who emit carbon.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 13:26

  @ nikkojii.
  Thanks.
  Legislation doesn't always have to be punitive money wise.
  I disagree that it would be too hard. I come from a time where once a SENSIBLE outcome was decided considering ALL the evidence, the Government of the day said from 'insert year' such and such is a requirement.
  I can recall a case when multi-nationals kicked up the PM said tough, if you don't like it we will Nationalize your industry. Did they take their bat and ball and go home. Not on your Nelly.
  As well, I don't expect the Government to provide all jobs, I certainly don't work for any form of Government in this country, but I don't expect my party to act like Stalin.
  
  Quote 'BUT this is where market forces are supposed to come in. New, clean industries that aren't burdened by the old tech of the big dinosaurs will gain ground in the market because they don't have to waste profits on carbon credits etc. They will slowly become more economically viable than the old dinosaurs and eventually there will be a natural 'adjustment' in the market.' Unquote.
  Really?
  Being pragmatic to me means not ideology but pragmatic politics vis a vis practicality and literal truth.
  
  As you state 'What have US car companies got to do with any of this?' Well when you find out let me know. The demise of the US auto industry and Detroit in particular had far more significant issues of race and myopic politicians than do to with anything much else.
  
  And on what we know of this proposal, after the tax switches to an ETS , the punters can look forward to a reduction in energy, and all the other jacked up essentials?
  No....thought not.

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 13:26

  @Litmn1 - You're right. Before the election Julia Guillard did say that there would be no carbon tax and the sad thing is that I believe she was far more sincere then than she is now.
  
  She was instrumental in getting the ETS canned and I'm sure she's not happy with having to support a carbon tax now.
  
  But all politicians LIE. Or refuse to answer the question. Or spin the truth so far out of shape that black ends up becoming white. This seems to be part of the job description for politicians these days and the better the politician the better they are at avoiding the truth.
  
  Maybe I'm just too old and cynical but I expect them to lie now so I'm afraid I'm not very shocked that Julia Guillard has changed her tune. Frankly I'm glad she did. Her 'no carbon tax' promise did NOT get a mandate from the electorate. Tony Abbott was spouting the same thing and he did not get a mandate from the electorate either.
  
  Both Liberal and Labour votes nose-dived so clearly the majority of voters did not like what either of them were promising. Now comes the interesting part. The Greens, for all their fanatical, unachievable aims, did get a huge boost from the voters. Why? Because they were the ones promising to do something about climate change.
  
  I did not vote Green because I prefer my politicians to be lying realists rather than starry eyed fanatics but last election I did come close to breaking my own rules. Why? Because of climate change. So in a way you can say that doing something about climate change is the only thing that did get an indirect mandate.....
  

• 

  Litmn1 from Parramatta , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 12:26

  "We" are the people who know what she said.
  
  As I said, it is one thing to say "'We know that acting on climate change isn't just the right thing to do, it is also an essential economic reform.'
  
  But are you seriously denying she said " There will be NO carbon tax under the government I lead".
  
  Obviously LaborHQ considers us as gullible as our PM does!!!!!!!!
  
  
  
  

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 12:26

  @Chris1948 - I've only been speaking in general terms so far, using the simplest analogies I could think of, but I have also thought about the details. Obviously I'm no expert in economics or politics but human nature I know pretty well...so here goes...
  
  Quote "I agree in principle that Big Business if they are guilty of trashing the place should be held accountable.
  What is the problem in requiring them to clean up by legislation. Too hard? " Unquote.
  
  In a word - yes, too hard in all sorts of ways. Legislation to 'fix up the environment' when they're done making a mess of it is already in place but it's weak. Setting penalties such as fines is next to impossible at the moment. You can't design blanket penalties that would fit all industries and you can't make individual penalties for each company. And let's say you did legislate penalties what would they be? $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000? No matter how big the slap on the wrist that is all it would be to a multinational worth /billions/. It would still be cheaper for them to pay the fine and keep on polluting.
  
  So... until you can quantify the damage and then put a price on it that will be ongoing and apply across the board the stick will never be painful enough to cause companies to want to change.
  
  Quote "Why should we via the Government and agencies effectively pay them money to fix their own mess? "Unquote
  
  Because the compensation is a short term carrot to tide them over the initial investment hump. Compensation to polluters will not be ongoing but the price of carbon will so simple arithmetic makes it obvious that they need to use the compensation to make the change so :
  
  a) their businesses stay viable and
  b) they reduce how much they have to pay LONG TERM in terms of the carbon price.
  
  Now I know this does not seem fair but government never seems to be about 'fair'. It's about being pragmatic. How can the job get done? In this case sweetening the pain for companies for a short while will not only get the job done....it will also keep those companies from liquidation. And that means keeping their employees in jobs.
  
  I don't like big business but it is a necessary part of life. No government can provide all the jobs. If we want jobs so we can eat and have a roof over our heads then we have to have an economy that includes all sorts of jobs providers - government, small business and big business.
  
  So...to get the job done AND to keep people in jobs every government has to do a balancing act. And that usually means the carrot and the stick.
  
  Quote "Under what we have seen thus far of this plan, particularly if it morphs into the proposed ETS (which has been a rank failure elsewhere and is ultimately an incentive for the corporates to make even more $), big business won't bear the ultimate cost.
  If you imagine that all of the costs they incur will not be passed on to the punters not just household energy, but petrol, transport. cost of goods in the supermarket etc I'm sorry but you havent thought it through IMO. " Unquote"
  
  You're partially right about the ETS. If the price of carbon is too low and the cost of credits is also low then the incentive to put money into new, cleaner technology will not be there and the big, very rich and powerful corporations will not do much. BUT this is where market forces are supposed to come in. New, clean industries that aren't burdened by the old tech of the big dinosaurs will gain ground in the market because they don't have to waste profits on carbon credits etc. They will slowly become more economically viable than the old dinosaurs and eventually there will be a natural 'adjustment' in the market.
  
  This is the theory and I don't know how well it will work but I do know that Detroit in the US went down the gurgler because the US car companies refused to change and refused to compete with the smaller, more economical, fuel saving imports from overseas.
  
  What have US car companies got to do with any of this? Simple. The US government did nothing to force them to change and so was indirectly responsible for the collapse of those car companies. If it had taken a stand early on those companies may have changed enough to compete. They may have changed enough to stay viable. And all their workers might still be in jobs.
  
  We have to stop thinking in such short time frames. Yes the big companies are going to put their prices up and yes we will end up being the ones suffering from those price hikes and yes, the people on low incomes MUST be cushioned as much as possible but change is going to happen no matter what. The only question is will we control the rate of change and in doing so cushion our most vulnerable people? Or will we stick our heads in the sand, do nothing because it's 'too hard' and then end up like Detroit?

• 

  Litmn1 from Parramatta , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 11:26

  This has gone beyond whether you believe in climate change or not. The PM LIED, clear and sinple and went to an election with a FALSE election promise and is now is insulting the Australian electorate's intelligence by insisting that we heard wrong. Grow some balls PM, go to an election and get a mandate from the people.
  
  As I recall, John Howard once didn't believe in a GST went to the people and won the election. He then changed his mind, BUT did have the balls to take it to the people, fought the fight and won the next election.
  
  There is a right way and a wrong way to go about thing PM and you have gone the wrong way.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 11:26

  @Labor HQ
  'We know that acting on climate change isn't just the right thing to do, it is also an essential economic reform.'
  
  Who is the 'We' and what supports this statement.
  
  

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 11:26

  @zedlive
  I'm intrigued. As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, we can't change physics that suggests that we have to have Co2 to exist. So can you explain what you mean by net cost to the Nation, with or without a carbon tax.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 11:26

  @nikkojii
  I haven't got mice in my walls.
  I agree in principle that Big Business if they are guilty of trashing the place should be held accountable.
  What is the problem in requiring them to clean up by legislation. Too hard?
  Why should we via the Government and agencies effectively pay them money to fix their own mess?
  Under what we have seen thus far of this plan, particularly if it morphs into the proposed ETS (which has been a rank failure elsewhere and is ultimately an incentive for the corporates to make even more $), big business won't bear the ultimate cost.
  If you imagine that all of the costs they incur will not be passed on to the punters not just household energy, but petrol, transport. cost of goods in the supermarket etc I'm sorry but you havent thought it through IMO.

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 11:26

  Shane_Doyle, as we look to suck up unemployment into the mining boom, your current experience and the insights you might have being emmersed in it are xetremely valuable.
  
  More valuable than anything else.
  
  As a result, if you feel comfortable doing so, I would be facsinated to read what you might post here around what you have found are the issues and so on. For example, we read we have a skills shortage and a mining boom and so on. You have any thoughts on that?
  
  If your not interested no problem.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  @ideasForFree.
  Good on you....Try asking your supplier for a refund of the credit and see how far you get..but you have to understand that not everyone can go solar as you have. Maybe they don't, like me, own the place where they live and anyway is that scheme still alive? Funnily enough, I live in a Government property. Have they rushed out to change this and similar properties to this magic solution? Ummmmm.................................No.
  Apropos the 'clever country' theme are you and other posters to this blog expecting me and the other gentle readers to believe that if this tax and 'action' as you call it is successful Australia will no longer be subject to the cyclones, flooding and other weather events of time immemorial? No longer stop the boats, no adverse weather allowed here!

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  Jellio111, the facts are the facts, and the facts are that we are not the political context we were 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
  
  Specifically, political mandate is by necessity bi-phasal now with regards term.
  
  There is electoral phase mandate.
  
  And there is mid-term phase mandate.
  
  This was not always the case.
  
  However as the last election showed. because the amount of political message we get through non personal contact channels has increased beyond the point that money can not buy electorally dominant message penentration, as opposed to the support of numbers of people, by necessity parties going into elections must have message that is tempered by countering the undemocratic power of money.
  
  That is factual and obvious to all and uncontraversial.
  
  What you are arguing for is that parties should be elected on the basis to alliegance to small numbers of people with large amounts of money.
  
  That's not democracy.
  
  And those great protectors of our democracy - the registered political parties of our nation - have not stood still in that context.
  
  And as a result the full Australian democratic process has not either.
  
  And so the bi-phasal electoral mandate has emerged.
  
  So are you on the side of democracy or not?

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  And further from what Nikkojii's said, you can't deny that a CO2 molecule lets in sunlight but blocks heat, and that sunlight turns and to heat when it hits mother earth, anymore than you can deny water when heated to 100degC boils.
  
  And anyone who has boiled the kettle knows energy or heat transforms, or changes, and given that no one denies heat is the fuel of weather and climate it is logical that more heat causes climate to change.
  
  Climate change.
  
  And CO2 traps heat.

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  Chris1948 - I see where you are coming from.
  
  And my politics are that I agree that there is a baseline of support for all members of the community beyond which [subject to all having a go where possible] no man or womans wealth or income is not chargeable.
  
  My considered view, however, is that not taking action in this area is a nett cost, for a lot of reasons, to the nation as a whole.
  
  Yours is the opposite.
  
  That's where we vary.

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  Dragonfly, that's even less accurate and rational that the rest of the stuff you have typed in here.

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 10:26

  @Louise - sorry did not mean to sound like I was trading off being a mum, but the truth is I /do/ care about children ...all children, not just our own. And I want a future for those children.
  
  You say that drought, flood and fire are all part of the natural Australian landscape. Yes they are but back when people were few and far between these events did not have as much impact. WE built on natural flood plains, WE built townships in the forests, WE eroded the soil. WE choked the rivers. WE made all these natural events so much worse than they would have been otherwise. And on a global scale WE are doing exactly the same thing.
  
  No matter how big your house may be it will fill with trash if you never put the rubbish out, if you never tidy up. I see the world as a big house and the corporations have been trashing it for a long time. Ordinary people have been the mice in the walls. We've done our little bit to tidy up the crumbs but until the big occupants of the house are FORCED to do the same the house will stay trashed and it will start falling down around our ears!
  
  This carbon tax is the big stick needed to make the corporations start tidying up. Like ordinary people they won't do a bloody thing until they really, really have to. Giving them a carrot as well as the stick is there to make them more likely to co-operate.
  
  The money from the carbon tax will go towards helping the mice in the walls. It will also go towards helping new, cleaner industries get into the game. At the moment they are too expensive to compete. Why? Because they /are/ cleaner but there is no dollar value placed on 'clean'.
  
  Meanwhile the established industries have been enjoying tax breaks for years. In effect we the taxpayer have been paying them to be dirty. Why invest precious profit into finding ways of being cleaner when there's no penalty for being dirty? And no incentive for being cleaner?
  
  Is this an adult way to behave? ***** no. It's childish. It's 'me, me, me'. We would not tolerate it in our kids but for some reason we think it's ok for businesses. Now Big Mama is being forced to take a stand [and yes I know she doesn't want to do it either] and the carrot and the stick are coming out. It will hurt in the short term but in the long term we will not only get some benefits out of it - we may all end up surviving as well.
  

• 

  IdeasForFree from Palmerston , ACT Saturday, 26 February 2011, 09:26

  As the Global Financial Crisis (the GFC) flattened the economies of the rest of the world, I used the Labor Government's $8,000 Solar Homes grant to install a solar power system. The immediate benefit at the time was jobs in the Melbourne office of the business that supplied the solar PV system and jobs for the electrical sub-contracting business in Sydney that installed it.
  
  My home already had ceiling insulation so I did not use the Labor Government's scheme to help create jobs in that industry at the height of the GFC.
  
  Will a carbon price worry me? The most recent "bill" from my electricity authority was a notice telling me I was in credit to the tune of more than $390!!!
  
  Given the cost of damage from record flooding in Queensland and Victoria, followed by one of the most powerful cyclones to devastate Far North Queensland (and the record profits of BHP and Rio Tinto) - it is just as well for Labor to respond now with a price on Carbon.
  
  At the time of the last election the above-mentioned events could not have been foreseen. AND the mining industry was spreading fear of massive job losses if a resource rent tax was imposed.
  
  There was a need for the Labor Government to respond quickly to the GFC after it was first elected. It did what was necessary to respond to that situation as it arose.
  
  There is now a need to respond quickly to the damage already done by severe climate events. It is good to see the Labor Government is again responding to this new situation following the devastation in Queensland and Victoria.

• 

  chris1948 from Melbourne , VIC Saturday, 26 February 2011, 02:26

  @ Louise fromBriarHill. Hi!
  Well put. I'm afraid that our leader and Combet et al have been zapped by the whacko AGW cult. We actually need Co2 to exist. Also with this crackpot theory that the way to make something competitive is to put up the price of the alternates so they are all the same. The Greens on this issue ~Waves, wind and waffle and now our Party joins them. What rot indeed Julia..
  The rest of us that don't have the CEO or MP salary are the ones that are picked to suffer.
  and @ mywally~ We don't give the tax on ciggies or alcohol back to the business that manufacture or supply the stuff, do we? Take a bit of a look at who owns the energy production in this country. A goodly percentage of it ain't Australian. So to paraphrase your question 'why on earth would they get it anyway?" when it comes to handing over the loot.
  @nikkojii. I am NOT a mum, but I know what it's like to be on the breadline. I'm also not a first generation Australian whatever that means, and sometimes the jingoism about how experienced and tough we are etc etc grates a bit. A bit of an urban myth to delude ourselves on that one. We really should get our more ( other countries ).As a first generation Australian you should know that 'floods happen regularly, where Black Saturday fires happen regularly, where our crops are either dried out, burnt out or washed away' has been a feature of this continent recorded for aeon's, not just the weather records of a relatively short period. Can you tell me what these industries are that will 'mushroom' and be Australia's saviour and how you see that being accomplished?
  My personal wish is that we do indeed exhibit some of what is supposed to make this the 'Clever Country' and can this woeful idea.

• 

  LouisefromBriarHill from Briar Hill , Victoria Saturday, 26 February 2011, 01:26

  nikkojii from Warrendyte. I also is a mum-I hate that as an agruement, we are all human
  
  several issues to consider
  
  honesty of politicans, if they say that are going to do or don't do something to get your vote, they should stick to it, it undermines their credablity, many people are cheesed off by the back flips,
  
  many people have tighten their belts already and they have nothing left to tighten
  
  what benefit will the carbon tax have on the environment, reports say little to none
  Another layer of burocrats to administer the scheme-great, did a good job with the insulation scheme
  
  Subsides, yes seen that before, usually the working poor aren't eligible,
  i see kids who go without meals NOW, or they live of potatoes and sausage meat as cheap food, -lots of families are struggling.
  
  Floods, bush fires, droughts, famine and earthquakes-goodness me you would think they have never occured before
  
  What cheeses me off, is that if you critise anything to do with climite change then you get the whole lecture and anything bad in the world is blamed on climate change. And told you don't understand, that you are stupid, that's the inference
  
  When people stop questioning then, then were will we be? Debate is always good. Climate change has become a religion and if you don't believe or question it you are a sinner.
  
  

• 

  Dragonfly from Wollongong , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 23:25

  Lordnelson101, do you emulate your namesake, particularly one eyed? Surely you can see she has lied about the carbon tax -- and you show no charity whatsoever towards Kevin Rudd, who was KNIFED BY GILLARD. She is an embarrassment. The first bogan PM, who claims a mandate she did not earn. I give this government six months, she will be out on her unfortunately superannuated by the Australian public backside. Bring it on -- or in her locker room parlance, Game on.

• 

  Dragonfly from Wollongong , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 23:25

  Gillard has lied through her teeth --- funny, you all would not accept the same from Abbott. This tied government has to go!

• 

  Dragonfly from Wollongong , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 23:25

  zedlive, don't you dare call anybody stupid --- you obviously didn't know that Tony Windsor sold his farm to the Chinese. You are deluded -- and I am far from senile. So unless you want to emulate the dictatorial Labor government, DO NOT TELL ME TO GET OFF THE SITE. Your brains, it would appear, are sun addled.

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Friday, 25 February 2011, 23:25

  @ Louise from Briar Hill. I'm a mum and the thought of any child missing a meal hurts but they've already said that people will receive compensation so I don't think too many aussie kids are going to go hungry...not yet.
  
  But think about a world where the QLD floods happen regularly, where Black Saturday fires happen regularly, where our crops are either dried out, burnt out or washed away. How much food is there going to be then? And how much will it cost?
  
  Food shortages are already happening in other parts of the world and they could happen here as well. That is the scary thing. That is why I believe it's better to tighten our belts a little now rather than face so much worse in 20 - 30 years time.
  
  As someone very rightly put it dealing with climate change is insurance so that we all end up with a decent future.
  
  Why is that so hard to understand?

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Friday, 25 February 2011, 18:25

  Shane_Doyle : please vote liberal, the ALP has delivered the lowest unimployment rate in the developed world. If you can't get a job here you wont get one anywhere else.

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Friday, 25 February 2011, 18:25

  I'm so tired of the sympathy for Kevin Rudd. He was a one man sideshow who ran out of support from his colleagues. His party wanted him out, Gillard was the only one home, and she put her hand up. Rudd was so full of his own importance it's a miracle he lasted that long. The Sydney Morning Herald lists Media comments as a running tally.Rudd 4435, Gillard 3814 and Abbott 3172. You can't catch Kev when it comes to media
  Kevin Rudd has a snowflakes chance in hell of rising above his current portfolio. I think he's a very good foreign minister but by no means irreplaceable. Gillard was always loyal, it gets a bit hard when Rudd's support collapses. If Julie Bishop had the ability and backing she'd have Abotts job, although loyal to Turnbull.
  There is Total hysteria on this carbon tax. Abott has left himself nowhere to go, i think he's suggesting a peoples revolution against the carbon tax. I'd suggest he leave that rhetoric to the middle East and contribute something sensible.

• 

  Shane_Doyle Friday, 25 February 2011, 17:25

  I'm sorry Julia, to date I've been OK with everything you've done, but this Carbon Price proposal puts me right offside with you, and you've now lost me to the opposition. I do not have a job so this proposal is just MORE bad financial news for me.

• 

  Shane_Doyle Friday, 25 February 2011, 17:25

  I'm sorry Julia, to date I've been OK with everything you've done, but this Carbon Price proposal puts me right offside with you, and you've now lost me to the opposition. I do not have a job so this proposal is just MORE bad financial news for me.

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Friday, 25 February 2011, 17:25

  Is climate change real????? None of us has a clue. I therefore don't rely on any scientist to form my opinion. It's the large insurance underwriters that have convinced me. Cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico have been larger and much more frequent due to the warming of the ocean currents, according to the Insurance industry. The Insurance Industry really believes in Climate Change and have raised their premiums to allow for this increased risk. It's all about RISK. According to them, the disaster risk is to high so they compensate the risk with premium increases. To leave our children and grandchildren in as good an environment as possible we need some insurance and a carbon price is at least a start. Rupert Murdoch, a man i totally despise is on the record and i quote " we have to give the Planet the benefit of the doubt"

• 

  mywally from Blackburn , Victoria Friday, 25 February 2011, 17:25

  At last some action. Please don't be put off by the whingers and sceptics, although it's depressing that there are so many ignorant people in this country.
  
  A carbon tax/price should reflect the cost of the pollution caused by fossil fuels, not just what it costs to get them out of the ground.
  
  We tax other products that cause harm, like cigarettes and alcohol. It's only logical that we do the same with fossil fuels.
  
  And remove the billions of dollars in subsidies that we pay to the coal industry. Why on earth do they get them anyway?
  

• 

  jellio111 from brisbane , queensland Friday, 25 February 2011, 16:25

  one question i wouldnt mind Julia to come and answer without the political drivvle that comes with it.
  Why Julia, do you make a promise during the election of not bringing in a carbon tax and then do a sudden backflip in your first year in the hot seat?
  
  This smells of Greens all over it. How can we show respect, have pride and belief in a leader that changes her promises so quickly and for the worst. Bob Brown seems to be running both parties.

• 

  scotinthecountry from caltowie , sa Friday, 25 February 2011, 14:25

  i never get involved in politics but carbon tax is such a joke its hard to say nothing with levies for the murray, floods,cyclones, and now earth quakes cant we see nature does not need our help to change things for good and bad ......ice ages have come an gone without our tax money to help ....give us a break ..and oh I voted labour not the loonie greens so......next time its no vote for labour

• 

  scotinthecountry from caltowie , sa Friday, 25 February 2011, 14:25

  i never get involved in politics but carbon tax is such a joke its hard to say nothing with levies for the murray, floods,cyclones, and now earth quakes cant we see nature does not need our help to change things for good and bad ......ice ages have come an gone without our tax money to help ....give us a break ..and oh I voted labour not the loonie greens so......next time its no vote for labour

• 

  LouisefromBriarHill from Briar Hill , Victoria Friday, 25 February 2011, 12:25

  I am a long time labour voter, only once voted else where (when Mark Latem was opposition leader -but not liberial). I was movitated to join connect as I am SO ANGRY.
  What happened to " We will not be introducing a carbon tax."
  People have a low option of politicans as they say one thing and then in power do the opposite. Where is the intergrity?
  Julia you and the labour party have now lost the next election and we may end up with Tony Abbott. Do you only think in the short term.
  Australia is a small polluter when you look at the world stage, China, India, US.
  This tax will cause more harm to struggling families, for what gain?
  So that you can stay in office!
  Julia I don't know where you are getting your advice but where is the thinking.
  Look at how people live, housing blocks are small, there is no room for people to grow vegies and plant large trees to shade houses. People are struggling.
  If people think climate change is the biggest problem we have, think again. Get out of your local coffee spot and see how some people live. Go talk to people people who live in poverty, or are just able to pay their bills.
  I work with families and which meal would you like them not to give their kids
  

• 

  jellio111 from brisbane , queensland Friday, 25 February 2011, 12:25

  This is an absolute disgrace and this website should be changed to the Labor/Greens Party. This is the price the Australian Public pay for Gillard getting into bed with the greens jsut so she could be in power.
  The only people to cop this tax in the long run will be us, the consumers. If anyone thinks that businesses wont smack up prices after getting charged this is very naive. How many taxes does Gillard have to ram down our throat before we are all at breaking point. The point is very near for a lot of families.
  I'm hoping these independents aim up here and disagree with this useless tax on a very contentious issue. Still noone can actually prove climate change. For every attempted research that says there is climate change, one comes out to say it isnt.
  I honestly think this will be the nail in the coffin for Ms.Gillard and clearly proves she is not in touch with the Australian Public at all. it is all about personal agendas and shifting values to keep her behind planted in the seat which is hurting US the people who didnt vote her in in the first place.

• 

  dmans5 from Maroubra , nsw Friday, 25 February 2011, 10:25

  Julia and Wayne said as to stop the wave of fear, " We will not be introducing a carbon tax."Democracy is about ,"for the people , by the people" or are we adopting a form of Egyption government.State and Fed Labor will be buried come the next elections . And Co2 is not pollution!

• 

  Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Friday, 25 February 2011, 10:25

  New to labour connect and I think I could be forgiven for thinking I'd landed in a Liberal oriented forum by mistake!
  
  I'm as motivated by the hip-pocket as the next person but like most Australians I can rise above my own petty concerns /for a good cause/ and doing something about climate change is the best cause I can think of.
  
  I personally believe the science boffins are right about human influenced climate change but even if I had doubts I'd rather do something now and perhaps be proved wrong later than just sit on my hands while my daughter's future goes up in smoke.
  
  So what if we all have to pay more for electricity because of the carbon tax? Didn't we end up paying more because of the GST? Didn't we all end up paying for water after generations of getting our water for FREE? Didn't the people of Victoria [and I assume the other states] buy water tanks and save water like crazy during the drought that has just ended? Didn't we all start recycling even though we may have grumbled about it? We rose above all of those hip-pocket issues why on earth wouldn't we rise above this one?
  
  I'm a first generation aussie and the thing I'm most proud of is our ability to do tough things when we know we have to.
  
  Yes, there will be an economic cost and yes, what we do here may not make much of a difference on a global scale - nothing we do is likely to change the world - BUT by embracing a carbon tax now we may finally start becoming the much touted 'Smart Country'. We have the brains and innovation to become the hub of the new industries that will mushroom as a result of changing to a low carbon economy.
  
  Historically every single major shift in human activity has been painful but it happened. And changing to a more sustainable, low carbon economy will happen too. No matter who is in the Lodge or who did what to whom change is coming and young people of my daughter's generation are getting impatient with Labour for not having the guts to just get on with it. Yes, I was shocked by what happened to Kevin Rudd. And yes, I still hope that one day he will be vindicated and come back to lead Labour again. But in the meantime I'll take positive change wherever I can get it.
  
  We on this forum and others like it have become defacto focus groups. After the fiasco brought about by the last lot of focus groups that Labour listened to we have a responsibility to show the damn power brokers that /real/ aussies are not as short-sighted and petty as the ones they canvassed before.
  
  Apologies for the long post :/
  

• 

  kevqf133 from Sydney , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 09:25

  By the way lordnelson .......... this is not about political parties. I have already stated that I was a Labor supporter all my life. This about a guilt/feel good tax on Australian families that will have zero impact on any supposed climate changing pollution.
  It has nothing to do with that idiot Howard dragging us into an American made
  conflict.
  What do you greenies want ? Do you want us all to go back to living in caves and eating raw meat ?
  And you have a nerve referring to the EU and their tax regime .......... that collection of freaks is a political and economic basket case ........... and NO, their guilt/feel good tax has not had any effect on carbon emmisions around the world, No, it has not changed the climate in any way and NO, the people there are not better off as a result of the tax.

• 

  Brokr888 from COORPAROO , QLD Friday, 25 February 2011, 09:25

  Hooray, now let's get the compensation package right. The market mechanism has to work if we are to shift to a lower carbon economy. Hip pocket nerve triggered + Cash rebate = Investment in Energy Efficiency.

• 

  DavidEgan from Haberfield , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 08:25

  Cranial Penetration has finally occurred !!!
  
  $40 per ton please.
  

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 08:25

  Dragonfly, I don't understand your fear, and I don't see the rational basis for your argument.
  
  Your like a bloke standing in the face of a herd of cattle about to bolt out an open gate saying "What do I do. What do I do?"
  
  Well you better bloody do something, otherwise you will spend the next coupled of days gathering them up again.
  
  We need to do something. Skipper Gillard has made the call. What you need to do is think how can you make that work.
  
  By all means argue for a new Skipper, that's your right, but while she is calling the shots we play them, because working the plan is the key to results amongst large groups of people.
  
  Now, with regards Tony Windsors personal business as lomng as it is lawful he is entitled to proceed in an direction he wants to. It's not up to you and me to make a call for him on whether how it looks is an overall negative to his goals and aspirations.
  
  Having said that, I think the world needs answers, and for me that is the ability to sustain a population, and to the extent that other countries need to buy land overseas I am not sure the issue of their own population to land ratios is not where they should be focussing.
  
  China has made a great contribution to the world with their policies that according to the papers will see their population reduce in a decade or so. Of all the things China does, for me that is the most awesome and for that they deserve our respect and honour.
  

• 

  kevqf133 from Sydney , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 08:25

  lordnelson .......... can you, or any of your hippy mates explain to me how the entire population paying a guilt tax will reduce the temperature of the planet ?
  While you are at it can you provide proof that mankind's activities is having an effect on the climate. A colourful graph will not be accepted as proof !
  Every scientist in the World would have to agree that the climate has been changing for billions of years before humans appeared on this rock.
  Maybe we could be a true democracy and only apply the guilt tax to those who wish to pay it because they feel that by doing so they will be saving the planet.

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Friday, 25 February 2011, 04:25

  Get off the line Dragonfly, you and kevqf. Both of you have no manners and no brains,both those traits go hand in hand. China although the largest polluter, they lead the world in carbon reduction technology,wind and solar. Are all the Europeans stupid you fools,they have had ETS for years and have been pricing carbon long before you turned senile. The Crime of the century was committed by Howard, an illegal war and weapons of mass destruction that weren't in existence. Now the negotiations with the Greens to form Government needed some compromises. The smartest thing JG has done is appoint Combett to the portfolio. The other is a Multi party Committee which was left open to the liberals to join. The Electricity Generators want a Carbon Price yesterday. Gas fired power stations can't be built without a CARBON PRICE. Julia Gillard could not win the next election without some action on Climate Change. Tony Abbott cannot win the next election because his only definite POLICY is climate change is CRAP. There's not a lot of wriggle room there. The only part i liked in your babbling rant kevqf133 was........Good night!

• 

  Dragonfly from Wollongong , NSW Friday, 25 February 2011, 00:25

  zedlive, you are deluded. Are you the only person in Tamworth who rejoiced at what Windsor did after he sold his farm for $5M to the Chinese and then his soul to Labor --- erstwhile encouraging other farmers not to acquiese to the Chinese. If it looks good to you, you must be Stevie Wonder.

• 

  dmans5 from Maroubra , nsw Thursday, 24 February 2011, 22:24

  Labor has no mandate for a carbon tax, especially after saying "there will be no carbon tax from this government. And Julia, why dont old people vote Labor ? What is the saying,"if your not a socialist by the age of 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist by the age of 40 you have no brains" AYE JULIA .

• 

  kevqf133 from Sydney , NSW Thursday, 24 February 2011, 22:24

  What ?
  
  No reply ?
  
  Hello .................... anybody out there ?

• 

  kevqf133 from Sydney , NSW Thursday, 24 February 2011, 22:24

  You compare the introduction of a carbon tax on th Australian people to Bill Gates waiting ten years to "see where this goes" ? WTF ?
  There is no comparison ...........
  
  Let's talk about the bleeding obvious ............. The introduction of cheap and affordable computers and software did NOT directly impact on the living standards of working families across an entire country.
  
  The introduction of cheap and affordable computers and software did not "pretend" to change the climate of our planet !
  
  The introduction of cheap and affordable computers and software was not driven by a looney left wing minority group within a "hanging by it's fingernails" government.
  
  The introduction of cheap and affordable computers did not introduce an unwanted and unwarrented tax on the people.
  
  Your argument is as stupid as saying "Imagine if Henry Ford had said lets not invent the Model T but lets make everybody walk" !
  
  Absolute crap ......... !

• 

  kevqf133 from Sydney , NSW Thursday, 24 February 2011, 21:24

  You people have a *****ing cheek introducing a carbon tax in the smoke screen of a disaster in New Zealand. How *****ing low can you stoop to think that it would go un-noticed because of events over the Tasmin.
  I have voted Labor all my adult life at all levels of government but I swear by all I hold dear that I will NEVER vote Labor again .......... EVER.
  Miss Gillard ........... you stated very clearly before the last election that your Government would not introduce such a useless, needless, and damaging tax. YOU LIED !
  You and your party backed away the multi billionaire miners when they opposed your (Correction ... Kevin Rudd's) minerals super tax ! But you are quite happy to impose a super tax on working class Australians for everything they buy every day. And why ? To appease the looney left Greenies because they keep you in power. So you and your cabinet are willing to impose a huge burden on working class Australians just so you can keep your privilages of power and your luxury travel etc.
  You have NO mandate from the people to impose this tax, you have NO legal or moral right to impose this tax, and if you were true to yourself you would have to admit that imposing this tax will do ***** all to influence the climate on this planet.
  Is China, India, Russia or the USA going to impose a guilt tax on their population and drive economic growth backwards and living standars down just so some left wing, tree hugging hippie Greenie can feel all warm and fuzzie ......... I don't *****ing think so.
  Good night !
  

• 

  Angus_Benson Thursday, 24 February 2011, 21:24

  I agree that climate change is a big problem but if the carbon tax is placed, where will the money go? It should go to higher investments in renweable energy and CO2 reduction schemes but I fear it will just line beurocrat's pockets

• 

  RohanWilson from Manoora , Queensland Thursday, 24 February 2011, 21:24

  After voting green in the last few elections I can now return to Labor! Climate change is easily the biggest threat facing Australia.

• 

  Angus_Benson Thursday, 24 February 2011, 20:24

  It should be labelled a tax on living! Not a carbon price. I want to be able to afford to live without another unnecessary price on life!

• 

  zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Thursday, 24 February 2011, 20:24

  Looks good to me ...