Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[wombatwal]

He can't answer his scare mongering comment

Quote:

We were warned that the carbon tax would impact on industry and jobs.

It will impact, but how much?
Not much I think.

[Hallo Alfie]

Only time will tell the full depth and breadth.
What we do know is that the tax will have some impact on the economy, on jobs, and on business and household costs - that is what it is designed to do.

We also know that it will do four parts of stuff all in saving the climate.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Only time will tell the full depth and breadth.
What we do know is that the tax will have some impact on the economy, on jobs, and on business and household costs - that is what it is designed to do.

We also know that it will do four parts of stuff all in saving the climate.

Hang on a minute Alfie.
You have not answered your "We were warned' alarm, as though it has had an impact beyond what was predicted.
Are you going to run away from your alarmist talk?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

You have not answered your "We were warned' alarm, as though it has had an impact beyond what was predicted.

Two things.

I just did answer.
Why would you think I was speaking on "an impact beyond what was predicted"?
You appear to be agreeing with my point about the warnings, and at the same time trying to take my comments beyond the words used.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Only time will tell the full depth and breadth.
What we do know is that the tax will have some impact on the economy, on jobs, and on business and household costs - that is what it is designed to do.

We also know that it will do four parts of stuff all in saving the climate.

It is actually designed to lower the cost of renewable energy. The cost of solar is already plummeting, so that it is now cheaper to buy solar without a rebate than it was to buy it with a rebate just a few years ago.

If you are concerned about rising costs to business, you would be far more useful directing your energy to controlling the rising costs of power infrastructure and generation. Those costs have risen far more than the carbon price, and in a way that is directly attributable to deceptive pricing by business and state governments.

[uvar]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-0...furphy/4187906

...Mr Abbott said it was a fabrication for the Prime Minister to suggest power prices are rising because the states are over-investing in power infrastructure.

He says the carbon tax is to blame for rising electricity costs.

But Opposition energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane has admitted state government spending on the poles and wires of electricity networks has pushed power prices higher.

And the former opposition leader, frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, agrees with that position.

"There is no doubt the bulk of the reason for the 50 per cent, or thereabouts, increase in electricity prices for example in New South Wales over the last few years has been because of investments in poles and wires basically in the transmission and distribution networks," he said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226446264715
...In Australia, $11 billion of infrastructure has been built to meet seasonal peaks in demand.

In South Australia, for example, 20 per cent of network capacity is needed for the equivalent of 23 hours a year...

Strange, Alfie, this kind of thing has been responsible for much larger price rises than the carbon price will but despite your interest in avoiding

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

[an] impact on the economy, on jobs, and on business and household costs

you don't seem to have mentioned it. (And yes, I have selectively quoted, especially in that second article. Enjoy!)

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by uvar

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-0...furphy/4187906

...Mr Abbott said it was a fabrication for the Prime Minister to suggest power prices are rising because the states are over-investing in power infrastructure.

He says the carbon tax is to blame for rising electricity costs.

But Opposition energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane has admitted state government spending on the poles and wires of electricity networks has pushed power prices higher.

And the former opposition leader, frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, agrees with that position.

"There is no doubt the bulk of the reason for the 50 per cent, or thereabouts, increase in electricity prices for example in New South Wales over the last few years has been because of investments in poles and wires basically in the transmission and distribution networks," he said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226446264715
...In Australia, $11 billion of infrastructure has been built to meet seasonal peaks in demand.

In South Australia, for example, 20 per cent of network capacity is needed for the equivalent of 23 hours a year...

Strange, Alfie, this kind of thing has been responsible for much larger price rises than the carbon price will but despite your interest in avoiding you don't seem to have mentioned it. (And yes, I have selectively quoted, especially in that second article. Enjoy!)

Yes, his own front bench is calling him a liar, because he is. Facts cannot be allowed to stand in the way of his narrative. If the truth gets out, then people won't vote for him.

In Victoria, the privatised SPAustnet is deliberately building infrastructure, including new office buildings, for much more than they need to cost because it is guaranteed a rate of return on what it spends.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It is actually designed to lower the cost of renewable energy.

So people's bills are getting smaller are they?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The cost of solar is already plummeting, so that it is now cheaper to buy solar without a rebate than it was to buy it with a rebate just a few years ago.

Evidence that solar prices are "plummeting" please.

Originally Posted by uvar

In South Australia, for example, 20 per cent of network capacity is needed for the equivalent of 23 hours a year...[/i]

Strange, Alfie, this kind of thing has been responsible for much larger price rises than the carbon price will but despite your interest in avoiding you don't seem to have mentioned it. (And yes, I have selectively quoted, especially in that second article. Enjoy!)

I'm not arguing that at all. The split is roughly 50/50, no?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It is actually designed to lower the cost of renewable energy. The cost of solar is already plummeting, so that it is now cheaper to buy solar without a rebate than it was to buy it with a rebate just a few years ago.

Sure is

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/n...arts-australia

http://theconversation.edu.au/newsfl...sil-fuels-7215

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I'm not arguing that at all. The split is roughly 50/50, no?

No - even ignoring that most households will be compensated for the carbon price rise - although it varies from state to state and e.g. in NSW it is close to 50/50 (first article I found, perhaps out of date).

But that's only if you look at the most recent price rise (obviously the only one the carbon price is part of). Its share is small compared to the typical rises over the last few years:

Quote:

...In fact last Monday's inflation gauge from TD Securities reveals that electricity prices have gone up more than 80 per cent in five years. ... But here's the thing: the TD Securities inflation gauge also showed that inflation was 1.5 per cent in the past 12 months, which is the lowest in three years... (source)

[a_unique_person]

One partial reason for the massive hike in infrastructure costs was the need to make the country power lines safer, since they were responsible for the most deadly fire on Black Saturday. One of the reasons that the fires were so deadly was because of global warming, it helped make the temperatures that much hotter, it helped make the drought that much worse.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Two things.

I just did answer.
Why would you think I was speaking on "an impact beyond what was predicted"?
You appear to be agreeing with my point about the warnings, and at the same time trying to take my comments beyond the words used.

You answered nothing.
Where is your evidence that the carbon tax has had an impact beyond what was predicted?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

One partial reason for the massive hike in infrastructure costs was the need to make the country power lines safer, since they were responsible for the most deadly fire on Black Saturday.

Evidence please.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

One of the reasons that the fires were so deadly was because of global warming, it helped make the temperatures that much hotter, it helped make the drought that much worse.

Rubbish. The reasons that the fires were "so bad" were a combination of things ranging from bad luck, poor management by councils (no burning off due to stupid green schemes), dense suburban living in country locations among others.

Originally Posted by wombatwal

Where is your evidence that the carbon tax has had an impact beyond what was predicted?

Am I understanding you correctly. The job losses above were predicted? Where and when?

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Am I understanding you correctly. The job losses above were predicted? Where and when?

I may not be paying enough attention.
But what job losses?

[Hallo Alfie]

You're kidding!? Please review this current discussion and how it commenced.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

I may not be paying enough attention.
But what job losses?

Well given the unemployment rate, steady at 5% nationally and below in some states, a very good question.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

You're kidding!? Please review this current discussion and how it commenced.

Can you please supply me with the evidence that job losses are above what was predicted, and it is due to the carbon tax.
Very simple, you either have the evidence or have nothing.

[Hallo Alfie]

Please review the discussion and come back to me when you have caught up. We seem to be at cross purposes and you are asking questions based on things not said nor claimed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Evidence please.

For someone who claims to be full of information, you know how to play dumb whenever it suits you, then you claim there is no evidence. I read the news sites, I keep up with what they say about black saturday, I know what the recommendations of the royal commission were. Google it ffs. ger off your ** for a change when it doesn't suit you. I predict you will now report this post, get it sent to AAH, and claim there is no evidence when there is a whole royal commissions worth.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Please review the discussion and come back to me when you have caught up. We seem to be at cross purposes and you are asking questions based on things not said nor claimed.

I said

Quote:

evidence that job losses are above what was predicted

Yes, you are right you did not say that.
The whole crux of my dissagreement was your "we were warned".
Your link for that was very general and did not back up your "we were warned" quote.
We are not getting anywhere with this, best left without you answering my original question.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

For someone who claims to be full of information, you know how to play dumb whenever it suits you, then you claim there is no evidence. I read the news sites, I keep up with what they say about black saturday, I know what the recommendations of the royal commission were. Google it ffs. ger off your ** for a change when it doesn't suit you. I predict you will now report this post, get it sent to AAH, and claim there is no evidence when there is a whole royal commissions worth.

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

Are you claiming that you read the final report of the Royal Commission and couldn't find any evidence of the part played by power lines in the Black Saturday fires? That you couldn't find any evidence of the Commission's recommendations to upgrade the electricity supply infrastructure?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Are you claiming that you read the final report of the Royal Commission and couldn't find any evidence of the part played by power lines in the Black Saturday fires? That you couldn't find any evidence of the Commission's recommendations to upgrade the electricity supply infrastructure?

Nope.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Nope.

Then what do the highlighted words in this post mean?

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

[Hallo Alfie]

They mean exactly what they say.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

They mean exactly what they say.

Exactly what they say is that there's a lack of evidence that the Black Saturday fires have led to an increase in spending on electricity supply infrastructure - a claim which is demonstrably without merit - and that this lack of evidence - a lack which doesn't exist - is telling you something.

Your argument appears somewhat confused.

It seems that what you really wanted to say is that the evidence doesn't count because AUP didn't post it here for you and instead suggested that you do your own research.

[Hallo Alfie]

I have no argument here - yet again you get things wrong. I am simply asking someone to produce evidence to support their claims, rather than cite from what I imagine are biased memories.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

<snip>

. . . and claim there is no evidence when there is a whole royal commission's worth.

You nailed it, AUP.

Have a cookie.

[uvar]

I understand that the asylum seekers legislation is the focus of today, but it's still surprising how little the carbon tax has been mentioned in parliament. Maybe Abbott's just holding the best until last?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Evidence please.



Rubbish. The reasons that the fires were "so bad" were a combination of things ranging from bad luck, poor management by councils (no burning off due to stupid green schemes), dense suburban living in country locations among others.

You cannot possibly be serious. How can you not have heard of the Kilmore East fire on Black Saturday, which was started by downed SP AusNet power lines? Have you been hiding under a rock for 4 years?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I have no argument here - yet again you get things wrong. I am simply asking someone to produce evidence to support their claims, rather than cite from what I imagine are biased memories.

Read. It's not that hard.

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.a...s/Final-Report

[Hallo Alfie]

Indeed it is not hard. Perhaps others should read it too and obtain a fuller grasp on the issue. However, the arguments some have been putting up now make me think we are totally at cross purposes.

I asked for evidence to this statement from AUP. I am relating to the first part, others seem to be on the second.

"One partial reason for the massive hike in infrastructure costs was the need to make the country power lines safer, since they were responsible for the most deadly fire on Black Saturday."

I would like to see where AUP gets his info on the relationship between the "massive hike" in costs and the lines. My understanding is that the power companies had some insurance against these types of events (i.e. fires). I would also be interested to see the extent of the "partial" comment.

I have no argument against the second part of the sentence.

Has AUP some evidence on this or is he guessing?

Like I said earlier, I do not disbelieve him, it simply does not fit with my understanding.

[bit_pattern]

Alan Kohler on why Abbott's 'blood pledge' won't be carried out:

Quote:

Against that, the economy is travelling very well indeed and the Coalition has a very big looming problem funding handouts without the taxes (carbon tax and mining tax) that go with them. The hole is said to be $70 billion, which will have to come from spending cuts or other taxes.

Gillard and Wayne Swan believe that if they neutralise boats and company tax as issues, then the $70 billion hole will sink Tony Abbott.

Also, they hope the carbon tax will be less of an issue because a growing number of emitting companies are already making a profit out of it. That’s because the compensation for trade-exposed firms is fixed for five years based on old industry averages; many are now emitting much less greenhouse gas and are ahead on the deal. They will squawk if Abbott repeals it.

What’s more, Abbott won’t be able to repeal it before 2015 because of the need for another election to do it, by which time companies may be buying cheap European permits.

[Wildy]

Of course Abbott could run on a platform of getting rid of the carbon tax and then claiming that getting rid of it is a "non-core promise".

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Alan Kohler on why Abbott's 'blood pledge' won't be carried out:

#1 Against that, the economy is travelling very well indeed and the Coalition has a very big looming problem funding handouts without the taxes (carbon tax and mining tax) that go with them. The hole is said to be $70 billion, which will have to come from spending cuts or other taxes.

#2 Also, they hope the carbon tax will be less of an issue because a growing number of emitting companies are already making a profit out of it. That’s because the compensation for trade-exposed firms is fixed for five years based on old industry averages; many are now emitting much less greenhouse gas and are ahead on the deal. They will squawk if Abbott repeals it.

#3 What’s more, Abbott won’t be able to repeal it before 2015 because of the need for another election to do it, by which time companies may be buying cheap European permits.

#1 The handouts wont be needed. ie compensation will not be required if the tax is not there.
#2 They already know Abbott will be repealing it. They might squawk, but not as much as the implementation of Gillard's. Aldo the word "hope" is a bit wishy washy.
#3 Why won't he repeal it before 2015?. Assuming Labor won't support him through the upper house, Abbott has already touted the possibility a double dissolution to do just that.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Of course Abbott could run on a platform of getting rid of the carbon tax and then claiming that getting rid of it is a "non-core promise".

The Yabbie has certainly set an impressive (probably unbeatable) low water mark for those that follow, hasn't she?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

#1 The handouts wont be needed. ie compensation will not be required if the tax is not there.
#2 They already know Abbott will be repealing it. They might squawk, but not as much as the implementation of Gillard's. Aldo the word "hope" is a bit wishy washy.
#3 Why won't he repeal it before 2015?. Assuming Labor won't support him through the upper house, Abbott has already touted the possibility a double dissolution to do just that.

Abbott has promised to keep the tax cuts. No one has any idea how he will finance it, least of all Abbott himself. He just promises anything, then leaves the details to others.
Industry accepts that Australia has to do it's bit, the realists who go with accepted, mainstream science, anyway.
A double dissolution? That will generate a huge backlash. Most Australians are rapidly waking up to the fact that all Abbott's spittle blasting fear mongering is just empty lies designed to get their vote.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Abbott has promised to keep the tax cuts.

The term was handouts, not tax cuts. There is a difference between them.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Industry accepts that Australia has to do it's bit, the realists who go with accepted, mainstream science, anyway.

Even if true, none of this even remotely negates what I said.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

A double dissolution? That will generate a huge backlash.

I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Most Australians are rapidly waking have woken up to the fact that all Abbott's Gillard's spittle blasting fear mongering is just empty lies designed to get their vote.

ftfy

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.



ftfy

I agree, Rudd had no guts, he should have called Stalin on his opposition to the ETS, he should have called an election. He would have beaten Stalin, and there would have been an ETS.
If the Stalinist party gets in, in 2013 and cannot negate the carbon tax, Stalin will hope to win a double dissolution, but don't be too confident of that. Hopefully by the time he can call a double dissolution enough punters would have woken up to Stalin.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

The term was handouts, not tax cuts. There is a difference between them.



Even if true, none of this even remotely negates what I said.



I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.



ftfy

you will have to show me all the damage being done by the carbon price. I can't see it anywhere. Far more price rises have been caused by climate related extreme events.