“THE Greens will support the Gillard government’s $300 million steel transformation plan in both houses of parliament, ensuring Labor’s entire carbon tax plan will be passed into law.
“The party’s support will be conditional on an amendment requiring the government to pay regard to green jobs in allocating steel restructuring funds.
And while the Australian government asked the Australian people for submissions, most of the 4,500 were apparently against the tax and so rejected.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The waministas are crowing at the prospect, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
The world is being placed under a tyrannical social mania dressed up as science.
Look at what the site “Skeptical Science” has to do to keep on story:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/11/more-on-record-keeping.html#comments
When the supporters of a cause choose to indulge in Orwellian/Stalinistic historical ‘editing’, the supporters are on the wrong side of history.
Being an important day in Australia’s political history….I would just like to say that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
And I’m fkn angry.
To paraphrase another troglodyte leader “God help Australia because etc., etc., etc.”
El Gordo – your reference is simply laughable. What utter rot.
Anyway why worry – Tony will repeal the act won’t he?
Don’t forget what Juliar and the Labor idiots are saying even today, “we are taking action on climate change.”
Now if they really believe this they are either liars or fools or both. This may make Luke, Gav etc feel wonderful but the last thing it will do is make any difference to the climate.
Even their climate commissioner Flannery knows this is garbage and under pressure from Bolt has admitted as much.
This is the greatest con and fraud in the last 100 years and anyone who believes otherwise suffers from below average intelligence or haven’t bothered to check the climate history of the Holocene.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the climate of this planet over the last century.
A lousy ten minutes searching the internet proves this to be the case.
A timely post Jen and a sad day for Australia.
The thrusting of the wishes of the minority Green Party upon the vast majority of Australians is the galling part. When the rest of the world is heading in the other direction, to be desperately legislating this ideology at horrendous cost, is a stupidity that I would have previously thought was not possible for a reasonable society.
sd
“possible for a reasonable society.”
Key word here sd.
Let’s face it, most people just don’t care or go with the party of their choice anyway.
Yes JW. All the while I have been saying to myself that we couldn’t be this crazy and that someone would come to their senses but it’s passed now [in the lower house only but the senate is a lay down misere] and it will be a big and expensive mess for the future.
History will reflect this as one of the lowest days in Australian Parliament record. To pass a Bill that will change our global competitiveness and impact on the national economy with no science to back applying a carbon tax highlights, we have representatives that work on, I think rather than I know. A tax needs a goods or service!
Asia Major and now Africa are opening mines larger than those in Australia. Australian Industry needs a supporting government not hard-core opposition.
There is no clean energy on the horizon hence the 500 corporations cannot lower their CO2e emissions. The Government ‘s ill-conceived carbon farming will cost participating land owners as the claimed CO2 sequestration will cost far more that the proposed trading income.
I sat on UNCTAD UNFCCC global assemblies working out low cost offsets for nations and industry.
Well planned under UN rules the income from Carbon Trading will actually fund research into clean energy and in time make Australia more competitive. Before the applying date a complete rewrite is needed that will not be an impost on the 500 and people. I know!
Robert Vincin
briefly in Sydney from Asia Major reversing CO2e and deserts to sustainable soil food fodder
I had trouble getting out of bed today.
Jen, No one can say a good fight against a bad law was not done.
Came a long way, from a few in the widerness, to 60 almost 70 % and the only way they could get it through was to lie about it.
John Howard was way out in front until Work choices and then wipe out.
SME business is going to suffer cruelly under this tax.
The GetUp Green Puritans must be in the pay of Big Irony.
Surely, it can now be said that Environmentalism is the enemy of Conservation. One sees it everywhere: the diversion of funds to the climate fraud, fire policy, energy policy, anti-nukes, anti-hydro, anti-damming, the humiliation of mainstream agriculture, the localist movement, anti GM, organics etc. Everything is tending to neglect or over-use, waste alternating with paralysis. Frivolous green fetishism has replaced balanced, realistic management of resources, otherwise known as Conservation.
Above all, to pay for our follies, we are ever more dependent on revenues from Big Coal. Big Coal may have a more direct relationship with Tony Windsor, but it has an indirect handle on all of us. Due to our trashy standards for conservation of money – which is converted energy and a resource, just like sun, air and water – we are gouging our landscape frantically so that 75% of our coal can be incinerated elsewhere, and as soon as possible. Turnbull and others can spin as hard as they like about China’s eco-fetishes, but Australia is making its money by turning its enormous coal supply into atmospheric carbon at an ever-increasing rate. (Not that the CO2 matters, but the degradation of our best land does matter.) Part of that combustion of our coal overseas is to manufacture heaps of medieval junk which pass for “clean energy” components, and which we are expected to buy. (Maybe they could use the factory they used for making all those fluffy, disintegrating batts, way back in ’08. You know, the factory right next to the medical waste incinerator, right next to some Chinese whingers’ village.)
For Australia, clean energy is, primarily, coal burnt more efficiently in newer facilities with higher standards. That cheap and abundant energy needs to put us in a winning position where we can say yes or no to Big Anyone. Conservation will always be a casualty of economic desperation, and hence will be a casualty of this collective neurosis called Environmentalism.
Has anyone noticed that comments for and against in newspaper columns are pretty common and very passionately held be each side. A very divisive issue and it won’t be going away any time soon.
So will the sky now fall in?
Will Abbott reverse the decision in a double-dissy ?
Robert – in my opinion – it’s too simple to say it’s just green fetishism – Barry Brooks is pro-nuclear as is Hansen.
anti-GM and AGW don’t necessarily go together either …. or organics
Gee Luke will the temperature now change?
On Sept 12th I went to Canberra to disrupt Parliament on the CO2 tax debate.Today unfortunately I could not attend.This is the biggest scientific con of the last 100 yrs.The scientific method has been thrown out the window and replaced with consensus science.How can our humanity be so intelligent when inventing new things that benefit people,yet so stupid in this instance of AGW theory?
Austerity via the oppressive hand of environmentalism will not save the planet.We need true freedom and democracy to find truely creative solutions.The elite 0.001% who own and control the Global Central Banking System,do not have any solutions since they have a pre-ordained manifest destiny of them being the absolute rulers of the masses regardless of new innovations/concepts.
Join the dots and study carefully this new age of tyranny.
‘So will the sky now fall in?’
Depends on the polls going into Xmas and I suspect not good news. This will be the catalyst for a possible coup, otherwise they will all go down with the good ship Joolya at the next election.
Abbott will bring on a double D because half the people don’t want the carbon tax and they won’t be changing their mind. A third want it, but its the undecided fence sitters who need to be convinced and wooed accordingly.
Sorry you didn’t like my link comrade, if you could possibly find the time to elaborate I’ll take your criticisms onboard.
el gordo,I don’t trust Abbott or the Goldman Sachs accolade for the Eastern Suburbs.All Govts and businesses in the West are controlled by Global Central Banks.They create from nothing in their computers,all the new money as debt, to equal the increases in your productivity.This is why we are in so much debt.You are their debt slave.
Gee Luke…will the globe now cool down?
The delusions of the AGW community are now on full display.
This legislation- even if adopted by every country in the West- will do nothing to actually lower CO2 in the atmosphere and will certainly not make extreme weather change in frequency or intensity.
You Australians have been had: Ripped off by a bunch of con-artists and profiteers and over paid bureaucrats.
Just like the body count from the recent fires in the bush, caused by green policy madness, this law, if allowed to stand, will hurt Australians.
I just hope that those scenes of jubulation and gloating from the barking mad Labor idiots in parliament yesterday will annoy Aussies just as much as the electoral betrayal by the Gillard liar has accomplished.
One day most Aussies will understand that their sacrifice on this mad green altar will not change the climate at all and then we will see an even greater groundswell of opposition to the passage of this mad legislation.
You can vote here on the co2 tax at the Nine Msm poll. Currently running against Labor by about 4 to 1.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/previousvote/
A bit late Neville – the vote (in the parliament) was yesterday.
And face it – only people with the guns out are going to vote in ninemsn polls aren’t they? Means nothing. For example have a look at the iPhone poll at ninemsn a few days before – nobody is going to buy it according to the polls – so that explains why Apple sales are off the meter? These polls are paff.
Get Abbott to rescind the tax with his new blood vow. Betcha he won’t though.
luke and polls; here is one in a dyed in the wool fairfax bit of rubbish; please vote in the top 2 carbon TAX polls:
http://www.theherald.com.au/polls/?page=
When I had LM out recently a hack from the paper turned up and I asked her about how their polls consistently are against the left-wing editorial position of the paper on a range of issues not just AGW; she didn’t take any notice ot them she said, she wrote what she thought was right; that’s the sort of arrogance fueling the AGW and the left generally.
“she wrote what she thought was right”
When “our” ABC report on any left wing event the purring is deafening. But the acid that drips from their sweet lips on any opposition report says a lot more than the story.
Say Luke old mate, I was wondering if I might ask a favour.
Could you point me to anywhere in the legislation, or in any legislation, either in force or even proposed where the Government shows its intent to introduce Nuclear power, as you mentioned above. Failing that might you point me to any Labor intent for Nuclear Power.
I’m interested to see how soon it will be up and running with respect to this Clean Energy Future Legislation.
Thanks mate.
Tony
Tony – you know there isn’t any. But your implication is not what I said.
‘You Australians have been had: Ripped off by a bunch of con-artists and profiteers and over paid bureaucrats.’
This is undoubtedly true, but all is not lost because we have Barnaby Joyce.
‘As Australia faithfully followed the mood of global scepticism, Labor, the Greens and the scientific cognoscenti have been unable to halt the freefall in support from above 60 per cent to below 40 per cent. The most relentless and effective voice of dissent here has, without any doubt, been Barnaby’s.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/arch-sceptic-has-many-jumping-for-joyce-20111012-1lkvl.html#ixzz1aeKpvr2j
The sun is at last being recognised as a contributing factor in climate change…. and about time too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml
Hudson’s article hedges and gives a hat tip to the Klimatariat, in accordance with British Brainwashing Company rules.
TonyfromOz,
There is such a thing as anthropogenic catastrophe – one new type is called Clean Energy, and it’s all the lamentable work of human beings. The time may have come to give each facet or manifestation of the Clean Energy Catastrophe its own Richter-like rating – don’t you think?
I wouldn’t presume on your time to ask what rating you’d give to our failure to develop nukes, modernise our coal generation, explore hydro etc. I don’t know whether you’d be more stupefied by wind-farming or baseload solar, though wind must be very high on the scale of energy imbecility. I dare say Timmy’s Geothermia gives them both a run.
I am curious, however, to know what you think of the rooftop solar feed-in scheme. Some are expressing surprise at the cost and chaotic functioning, others are appalled that anyone would be surprised. I’m guessing you would be among the appalled?
Your thoughts, and a rating for rooftop solar, if you have a moment?
It is fascinating to watch the AGW community members that still have some rational thought tiptoe around how this legislation will do nothing for the world cliamte, still keeps nuke power off the grid, and subsidizes ineffective costly and environmentally dubious ‘alternate’ power.
Robert,
perhaps you may wish to read this, with respect to Rooftop Solar power.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/rooftop-solar-power-reaches-grid-parity-with-coal-fired-power-well-not-really/
Tony.
Henry Ergas explains why this co2 tax will be a 1 trillion dollar disaster and of course won’t change the climate or temp by a flicker.
Juliar hasn’t got even the beginnings of an excuse because she/they have stated repeatedly recently that they are introducing this tax to ” take action on climate change”.
Just imagine the good we could achieve with an extra trillion dollars spent on health, housing, education, roads,etc and all the research we could muster into alternative energy.
A large proportion that trillion $ will be spent buying a tiny proportion of that 0.04% of the atmosphere from corrupt markets overseas just for the right to use our own coal in Australia.
This has to be the most blatant madness that this country has ever involved itself in.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/billions-will-be-wasted-painting-pork-barrel-green/story-e6frg6zo-1226166182020
Greens in control of the government remind me of the movie Alien.
Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
Parker: Look, I am… I’ve heard enough of this, and I’m asking you to pull the plug. [Ripley goes to disconnect Ash]
Ash: Last word.
Ripley: What?
Ash: I can’t lie to you about your chances, but… you have my sympathies.
Spot on Neville
Add this to the overkill with the NBN and the appalling waste with the BER etc then we are in for a rough time.
As Scott Morrison said, yet again, it will be up to the Liberals to clean up a Labour mess.
Lets hope that Peter Ridd’s lettter to Chubb seeking a review of how science is funded and managed in this country comes off, and Chubb has the ticker to do something.
Whilst he is about it, he might have the gumption to also ask why it is that the leading alarmists in this country(Karoly,Pitman,Whetton Jones et al) are also science advisers to the WWF, as well as being authers and reviewers of the IPCC documents.
In any other domain, that sort of conflict of interest would had them before the courts tout de suite…but no not our the precious GW darlings..they are above all of that… normal ethical standards dont apply to them.
Alan, I get the hostility aspect but “structural perfection”? Of the greens?! I swear when ever any of them are interviewed their eyes are spinning in different directions. They do spit venom though.
Okay, you got me there, Cohenite! Every analogy has its flaws. They’re certainly horrid creatures, though.
Cohenite…it was put to me that the government cannot ‘enact legislation ratifying a treaty that doesn’t exist.’
Is this your understanding of the legal situation?
When Cap’n Bligh is floored at the next election, it’s feasible that NSW could cooperate with Qld and refuse to collect the carbon tax.
Alan stole my line – humph !
“I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality”
perhaps true
So is the sky gonna fall in ?
Hi EG; I wrote this when Rudd was king of the ALP sand castle and was proposing to inflict his CPRS on Australia; it still applies to the carbon TAX:
“In a recent speech at the Lowry Institute, the Prime-minister, Mr Rudd, was scathing about skeptical resistance to ratification of his government’s legislation to combat man-made global warming [AGW]. This legislation, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme [CPRS], seeks to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by various means such as capping emissions, setting renewable energy targets [already the subject of the passed legislation, the Renewable Energy Target bill] and establishing carbon trading markets. All these proposals are consistent with the United Nations Copenhagen Treaty proposal which is outlined in the Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] draft paper released after preliminary meetings in Bonn in August of this year.
Most of the public discussion has been about whether AGW is scientifically valid and the cost of proposals to deal with it. However the UNFCCC introduces new and unconsidered consequences into the debate.
Section 38 on page 18 of UNFCCC describes how any scheme agreed upon will have the status of a government with vast financial capacity and enforcement capability. The document allows for the creation of a supervising board of UN bureaucrats with powers to issue fines based on multiples of the market price of carbon. So, for instance, if Australia does not confine its emissions to a target specified by UNFCCC and as agreed under the CPRS, fines up to $1 billion could be levied.
As well as penalties for non-compliance with emission targets, the main purpose of UNFCCC is to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth from developed nations to the economies of poorer nations. The justification for this is contained in Section 17 of annex 111 E on page122 which states the developed nations should compensate the poorer nations “for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees”.
The expected total of this compensation is described in Section 33, page 39, as being in the range of $US 70 – 140 billion per year. Each offending developed nation shall have at least 0.7% of its annual Gross Domestic Production assessed for compulsory contribution [Section 41, page 43]. In Australia’s case this would amount to $7 billion per year.
The UNFCCC is a comprehensive document and details how the supervisory board will have power over every aspect of a nation’s economy, including research, technology and financial institutions.
By virtue of Australia’s ratification of previous UN treaties such as Kyoto, any Copenhagen agreement based on UNFCCC may be binding and continue to dominate internal political and legal process despite a change in government and repeal of such legislation as the CPRS.
In Australia parliamentary approval is necessary before ratification of foreign treaties can occur under Section 51 (XX1X) of the constitution. But the CPRS gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the UNFCCC. So, if the CPRS is passed prior to the Copenhagen meeting then that ratification may already have occurred and Australia will be locked into the UNFCCC.”
What is the next stage of this IPCC travelling circus, Cancun, Mexico? I forget, but prior ratification consistent with a draft treaty can be extrapolated to any subsequent final treaty.
There are so many ways this government is screwing Australia.
Cohenite, or maybe a legal person who understands the workings of government.
Can the next government (liberal coalition) a) sack the Climate Commission and any associated overview organisation b) close down all sections of government departments dealing with “Clean Energy” and “Climate Change” c) stop all subsidies for “Clean Energy” regardless of contracts as a budget measure d) make it illegal by regulation for any government department or individual to purchase “carbon offsets” e) order the taxation department to stop collecting the “Carbon” tax but allow volunatry contributions until the legislation to scrap the tax is passed in the Senate f) prevent any authorisation of ETS g) any other regulations to prevent the operation of the “Carbon Tax” and the ETS
Luke
So is the sky gonna fall in ?
Not at all, people are far more resilient then that and will put up with it and make adjustments as they always did.
The question you should ask though, what’s the point of it?
I have spent a great deal of time following the links you and others provided and visited websites promoting both sides.
I am very doubtful of the claims re. human influence on a global scale, locally no doubt at all.
So tell me what will this tax achieve? other than the original purpose of wealth distribution?
Cement: Trust in government contract is a fundamental aspect of a modern Western democratic society; subsequent governments usually honour existing contracts entered into in good faith by private citizens with the previous government.
The case of the NSW solar rebate scheme is instructive; while in opposition the O’Farrell government said it would honour the contracts; when it realised the extent of the scam it tried to retrospectively change the contractual terms; because people enetered those contracts in good faith in respect of the undertakings by O’Farrell, his government would have had a hefty damages bill to pay; they had to relent and allow the existing contracts to play out despite the $1.9 billion annual cost to NSW for effectively NO power return.
What Abbott has to do is make it loud and clear that his government will not honour any contracts related to the Carbon Tax legislation and reserves the right to change, amend or abolish parts or the whole of that legislation when hew comes to power. On this basis people who eneter into contracts with this government will have notice of the intention of a changed government; they will, therefore, not be able to trot off to court and claim they entered those contracts in good faith; they will not have an equitable advantage because they were put on notice. This is crucial and will greatly reduce any compensation when the rotten TAX is abolished.
Thanks cohers, I’ll digest it.
@cohenite
Are you sure about that ? I hope so, but:
1) it will require a DD plus a Joint Sitting to get the repeal numbers. My memory from the 1974 DD is that there is a limit (6, I think ?) to the number of bills that can be jammed through a Joint Sitting resulting from a DD, so it could get very messy
2) sovereign risk is a big issue, I agree, but the current Senate composition (not to be much changed in a DD) could not care less about this. In fact, the Greenies are using sovereign risk to try and scare overseas investment away, at least from its’ traditional investment areas
Ian,
A look at the relevant section of the Constitution will confirm that no specified number of Joint Sitting “trigger” bills is mentioned. Also, even if the Senate composition is unchanged, the numbers Abbott will probably have in the Reps will easily swamp any opposition in the Senate. That’s what a Joint Sitting means, both houses sit as one to vote on any previously rejected “trigger” bills.
Ian, what you are describing is the parliamentary repeal procedure; I was describing the possible limits to any compensation claims which might ensue after the repeal process.
@Mark
I know this Mark – I’ve posted on this before. I was also around for the 1974 DD. Please don’t waste my time with lowest common denominator stuff
But there was a tricky of some sort on the number of bills that Whitlam could push through the Joint Sitting. This limit may have been simply the number of Trigger Bills he could rack up in 3 months – I simply don’t remember at this stage, 37 years later. But a tricky there most definitely was. I also remember that there was a time limit to when the Joint Sitting could be called after the DD and Trigger Bills: maybe constitutional, maybe Parliamentary tradition
Now we need a Constitutional Lawyer to tease all these critical details out in public. Whatever the actual situation, repeal and compensation will be very difficult … a real mess
Abbott appears to have followed my advice:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_bank_on_this_tax/
I must send him a bill.
No “trick” Ian.
I remember that the Coalition went on with a lot of crap at the time about how many bills Whitlam could take to a Joint Sitting. They didn’t have a leg to stand on and I am no admirer of Whitlam.
Abbott could possibly take an “omnibus” repeal bill to the Reps covering all the “carbon” bills. Who knows?
Anyway, I won’t waste any more of your time with LCD stuff, just read S.57 and see for yourself.