Don't we have to be a bit more sophisticated with the "liar" tag. I don't think Gillard knowingly told a lie. I'm not trying to split hairs here but you have to look at the situation before and after the election. The Labor parties platform was to go with the ETS , however it was defeated in the senate by the conservatives AND the greens. So election time comes and the greens and indis have the balance of power. The greens support the carbon tax proposal that the Labor party didn't want, so Gillard compromised with the greens and took the opportunity to get some form of price on carbon. So, that for me isn't a lie, in the same way that Howards introduction of the GST also wasn't a lie. Howard said a GST was dead and buried, then changed his mind and stood at an election on that platform ....and won. I recon that's fair enough.

It's been Labor party policy since 2007. I think we know where she stands on it.

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".

@felix: http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1174&Itemid=292

Look I told y'all last year, or when ever it stabbed Kevin right smack in the middle of his back, that that's what it would do to Y'ALL.

So suck it up.

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".

If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"

log man said...

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".

If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"

Be careful there not to mistake what you believe a carbon tax should do :

introduce a free market mechanism that leads to a reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide greater than could be acheived through other forms of government intervention

and what the proposed one in its current undefined form is tending towards :

introduce a carbon tax that is torn between penalising emitters to subdue the Greens, and compensating the consumer to subdue the independants, all the while failing to acheive either a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or a promotion of alternate technologies. The end result being a great potential ****edover by politicians into another bland shambles of a tax, so increasing the complexity of tax legislation while failing to deliver any comparable benefit

I really don't know where to start. If Howard had defeated Rudd at the 2007 election we would have a Carbon Trading Scheme, it was Coalitition policy at that election right up to the point where Turnbull was, (to use the Flysurfer vernacular)STABBED IN THE BACK BY THE LIAR ABBOTT. So the last 3 Coalition leaders would have either backed a carbon price or instituted a carbon price in government themselves albeit Abbott seems to want to keep his options open depending who he's talking to at the time. So if you took a ballot of all members of parliament the numbers would definitely be with the Carbon Tax. So what!! well, I just find the outrage kind of puzzling, Is it all "the tax", is it "the Lie" or is it that climate change is "a scam". To me the noises coming from the government seem to suggest the tax will be moderate with offsets PAID to lower and middle income people. "the Lie", to me is harsh , considering to lie is to knowingly tell a lie, political opportunism,slipperyness, yep fair enough but "lie" mmmmm. and then there's the science of climate change, and wherever you stand on that the winner will be the science. After all, incorrect science always gets replaced by better science and that only seems to be heading in one direction. I tell you what though, there's still this horrible mysogynistic stink about the opposition to anything the government does. Lightwood I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Kirner state labor government and the extreme feeling that came from the conservative media towards her but it seems to me the same low blows are being aimed at Gillard. I'm not saying both of those governments were/are perfect , but man, the attacks have a viciousness that's says to me there's more to this hate than just policy.

Hey Logman, for those with short memories, let's not forget how she got the job in the first place. We all know all you tell a Pollie lying because his/her lips are moving. Most of them will beat around the bush a bit and try to cloud the issue, Ranga can look straight into the camera and lie without even blushing, that is the difference.

Gunna1 said...

Hey Logman, for those with short memories, let's not forget how she got the job in the first place. We all know all you tell a Pollie lying because his/her lips are moving. Most of them will beat around the bush a bit and try to cloud the issue, Ranga can look straight into the camera and lie without even blushing, that is the difference.

So she is the finest of the best pollie!!!???

An alternative to a tax on the producers of carbon is to tax the consumers of carbon. ie. Us.

If you do that then there is no need for industries take their CO2 producing industries offshore. No matter where the product is produced it still has to be sold here and the carbon levy is the same.

Use the money earned to compensate the poor and to subsidise the development of non-CO2 producing alternatives.

Carantoc said...

log man said...

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".

If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"

Be careful there not to mistake what you believe a carbon tax should do :

introduce a free market mechanism that leads to a reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide greater than could be acheived through other forms of government intervention

and what the proposed one in its current undefined form is tending towards :

introduce a carbon tax that is torn between penalising emitters to subdue the Greens, and compensating the consumer to subdue the independants, all the while failing to acheive either a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or a promotion of alternate technologies. The end result being a great potential ****edover by politicians into another bland shambles of a tax, so increasing the complexity of tax legislation while failing to deliver any comparable benefit

Then again the carbon tax will never last 1000 years.

It is designed to be the precuser to an ETS in 5 years time, and to be fair, probably not a bad was of introducing an ETS

If CO2 is such an issue why doesn't the government buy up a lot of useless land and then plant fast growing eucalyptus trees that can be harvested every 10 years or so and used in the building industry for housing frames? Wood is basically carbon that has been sucked out of the atmosphere and using the wood in construction will lock it up for a very long time.

I read about a German/American chemist who is developing a CO2 scrubber that will collect CO2 from the atmosphere and then use it to feed bacteria that give hydro carbons as a waste product. Thus the CO2 scrubber is a little petrol factory. This apparently isn't some flakey stuff but is legit and is being backed by Exxon.

If the Aussie federal government backed this sort of technology instead of big energy companies then we would have a chance of making use of it instead of it being locked away.

OI! Where did you get my photo album doggie?? Please give it back. UNstained!

Mobydisc said...

If CO2 is such an issue why doesn't the government buy up a lot of useless land and then plant fast growing eucalyptus trees that can be harvested every 10 years or so and used in the building industry for housing frames? Wood is basically carbon that has been sucked out of the atmosphere and using the wood in construction will lock it up for a very long time.

I read about a German/American chemist who is developing a CO2 scrubber that will collect CO2 from the atmosphere and then use it to feed bacteria that give hydro carbons as a waste product. Thus the CO2 scrubber is a little petrol factory. This apparently isn't some flakey stuff but is legit and is being backed by Exxon.

If the Aussie federal government backed this sort of technology instead of big energy companies then we would have a chance of making use of it instead of it being locked away.

Nah mate. They could never do anything like that. Too easy, too simple, too sensible, it would end the debate and there is no gut gouging tax mechanism in it.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. The whole "Global Warming/Climate Change/Carbon Emissions" thing is being used by the powers that be worldwide as an excuse to get more taxes and exert more control over the masses.

We need to go nuclear with the latest technology like ceramic coated fuel beads, higher extraxtions of nuclear energy resulting in spent fuel being rendered virtually harmless and smaller unitised power generation modules thereby limiting and isolating damage caused by system failures.

Nuclear can only be a temporary solution though until cold fusion, geothermal and other technologies are perfected.

There is no lack of solutions for the problems of the world. What is lacking is "political will".

Gestalt said...

^^ this is already done, has been for a very long time now. the government doesn't farm, so it is done by private companies...... it's called the timber industry funnily enough.

you will find both hardwood and softwood farming. it used to be only softwood as pine trees are super fast growing and used in both construction and paper industries.

then the government legislated to stop old growth forest harvesting.....

overnight the immediate effect was an end to deforestation of old growth regions in australia and a new hardwood milling industry for our shores.

hardwood farming is more common in victoria and tasmania. softwoods QLD...

this policy has been in place for years. if it wasn't the howard government it was the one previous.

what we don't grow we import, imported hardwoods are usually not regulated like in australia. this is a major issue. global deforestation regulations would in fact protect our industry.

so much inacurate politically motivated crap in this thread. lacking facts, no wonder the carbon tax doesn't stand a chance.