Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

I agree, Rudd had no guts, he should have called Stalin on his opposition to the ETS,

Exactly. And I think we can credit Abbott with a bit more ticker than the yabbie's predecessor.

Originally Posted by wombatwal

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.

You are aware that the original Stalin - like Gillard - was a communist?
Just saying.

Correct me too, was it not Queenslands LNP that was compared to Stalin's party and not the federal Liberal Party?
Just saying.

That aside, hoping counts for naught. The double dissolution would be called within about three months; far too early for the punters not to give him the benefit of the doubt. The greens could also kiss their seats goodbye; and wouldn't that be nice? That aside, as I said earlier, the Labor party senators (and some others) would not simply relinquish the tenure of their seats on a matter of principle like that.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

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.

Hopefully you will settle on a place for the goalposts (not to mention the argument you would like to have) sometime soon.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

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.

I wasn't around here back when Rudd was anything. Out of interest, what was the general opinion of him at the time?

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

...That aside, hoping counts for naught. The double dissolution would be called within about three months; far too early for the punters not to give him the benefit of the doubt...

It's a little old now but this article is still relevant I think. In reference to Abbott gaining power during the current term (i.e. the Gillard government falls and he gains control of the House but not the Senate):

Quote:

...If an Abbott government formed without an election, it could set in train legislation designed to create a double dissolution trigger. This would probably take a minimum six months to arrange, time to pass the legislation, present it to the Senate under normal timetable procedures, achieve the first Senate block, then wait three months to again go through the normal procedures to achieve the second block.

Under the provisions of the Constitution, the last possible date for a double dissolution in the current term is 27 March 2013, which probably means the Coalition would need to take government by around the middle of 2012 to give itself time to arrange a double dissolution trigger...

...One other point to make is that if the Labor government makes it through to the end of its term in the second half of 2013 and the Coalition won that election, then the Coalition would probably find it impossible to hold a double dissolution until the first half of 2015...

...Of course, if current opinion polls continue through the next election in late 2013, then a massive landslide might give the Coalition a chance to break the current Labor-Green majority at a half-Senate election for Senators in place from 1 July 2014. There wouldn't be the need for a double dissolution if that was the case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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

Sure, tell us what handouts Abbott is going to cut.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by uvar

I wasn't around here back when Rudd was anything. Out of interest, what was the general opinion of him at the time?

He was a terrific picker of ear wax.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Sure, tell us what handouts Abbott is going to cut.

If memory serves and as I understood it, the tax cuts will remain as will the increase for aged pensions. The rest of "the compensation" payments will go as they will no longer be required (i.e. - no impost from the tax, no compensation needed).

[Wildy]

So where will the money to pay for the pensioners come from?

[bit_pattern]

$70 billion. From where?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

If memory serves and as I understood it, the tax cuts will remain as will the increase for aged pensions.

And no indication of how they will be paid for. Add up all his promises, you are getting to $70Billion. Not to mention he is imposing his own new company tax. For some reason, that is never mentioned. I predict it will destroy jobs and signal the end of the Australian economy and modern era of prosperity.

[uvar]

(Personal opinion)

Extremely poor behaviour by the Opposition in Question Time today. Much on education but a number of "questions" on the carbon price, mostly about singular businesses or people whose prices had gone up (supposedly due to the carbon price) and mostly phrased in the way "This document you haven't seen says you are wrong! Why are you wrong?".

Five opposition members including Abbott were ejected, which is shameful (the commentators on ABC news are trying to figure out the last time an opposition leader was kicked out and haven't found any examples yet - he might be the third after Menzies and Howard but that's not a certainty). Nobody else was ejected. This isn't the behaviour of people who know they can rely on facts, and their lack of respect and interest in actual discussion or progress is disgusting.

I saw an amusing comment on twitter that perhaps the Coalition will try to get Slipper back as the speaker...

[Hallo Alfie]

It doesn't look like Gillard's "lived experience" of the carbon tax is working out as she thought.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

2PP
Labor......... 43 -1
Coalition.... 57 +1

Main reason for price increases:
Mainly due to carbon tax........72%
Mainly due to other reasons ...17%
Don’t know...........................11%

Ouch!

[psionl0]

Is an increased vote for the coalition supposed to give us comfort?

[Hallo Alfie]

Define "us".

[bit_pattern]

Push polling is push poll

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It doesn't look like Gillard's "lived experience" of the carbon tax is working out as she thought.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

2PP
Labor......... 43 -1
Coalition.... 57 +1

Main reason for price increases:
Mainly due to carbon tax........72%
Mainly due to other reasons ...17%
Don’t know...........................11%

Ouch!

So what you're saying is that most people believe the Coalition's narrative that the carbon tax has increased prices? Because the last time I checked a poll was not a valid way to actually determine what causes price rises.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

So what you're saying is that most people believe the Coalition's narrative that the carbon tax has increased prices? Because the last time I checked a poll was not a valid way to actually determine what causes price rises.

Gillard said people's "lived experience" would start to change the polls.
Clearly they ain't changing and their experience is different from her claim (perhaps she was lying again?).

In fact the public's perception is that the carbon tax is the cause of price increases, and it seems to have reflected in the poll.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by Wildy

So what you're saying is that most people believe the Coalition's narrative that the carbon tax has increased prices? Because the last time I checked a poll was not a valid way to actually determine what causes price rises.

Perhaps it's not that simple. A.A. Alfie has (whether purposely or not) quoted a little too selectively...

The question for the result A.A. Alfie quoted:

Quote:

Q. Do you believe these price increases are due mainly to the carbon tax, or mainly due to other reasons? *
* based on the 52% who have noticed price increases

The 52% in question are from the previous question,

Quote:

Q. Since the carbon tax was introduced on 1st July, have you noticed any increase in the costs of goods or services?

The results of that question are summarised and show an example of the people who produced A.A. Alfie's results:

Quote:

Those most likely to say they have noticed an increase in costs were aged 35-54 (56%) and Liberal/National voters (68%).

It's not clear if any attempt was made to correct for the bias introduced by using this subsample.

The poll questions do not appear to have included a similar question for those who thought prices had not increased, and thus it's not clear what percentage of the other 36% believed the carbon tax had not had an effect. Similarly, the poll doesn't have any mention of the compensation that will be provided (to apparently the 60% of households that need it most) and how this compared to the supposed price rises. This is not to say that the poll results are generally incorrect, but simply that there are areas which were not polled which may have provided a more accurate result of general opinion. (Although given that the question about power prices preceded those about the carbon price and general price rises, and the vast majority answered that their power prices had increased, it could be argued that the order of questions introduced bias by making respondents think about price rises immediately before asking them about price changes.)

[Hallo Alfie]

Well spotted.
And how would this analysis relate to the drop in 2pp, do you suppose?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Push polling is push poll

Mark Textor. Scumbag supreme.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Mark Textor. Scumbag supreme.

Gee! And you get quite upset when people say bad names about others.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Gee! And you get quite upset when people say bad names about others.

The polls referred to seem to be by a reputable firm. The fact that Australians believe black is white, with a huge party bias, can be attributed directly to Mark Textor, the Goebbles of the Liberal Party. Using the Nazi trick of telling a lie often enough to make it true.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The polls referred to seem to be by a reputable firm. The fact that Australians believe black is white, with a huge party bias, can be attributed directly to Mark Textor, the Goebbles of the Liberal Party. Using the Nazi trick of telling a lie often enough to make it true.

Godwin?
Lose.

[a_unique_person]

The facts are inflation is low, power bills have been rising mainly due to distribution prices rising dramatically. These are unequivocal facts. Yet Abbott's lie becomes the truth. You will notice that according to the poll, the truthiness varies significantly depending on who you vote for.

[Krikkiter]

Global climate change action gathers pace:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/...-gathers-pace/

"Many of the world’s wealthiest countries have been taking effective action on climate change for more than a decade. Over that period 12 of the world’s wealthy countries – Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Japan, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States – have all reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide while their economies have continued to grow."

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Global climate change action gathers pace:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/...-gathers-pace/

"Many of the world’s wealthiest countries have been taking effective action on climate change for more than a decade. Over that period 12 of the world’s wealthy countries – Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Japan, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States – have all reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide while their economies have continued to grow."

Just to endure this items remains on topic:

What is your point with regard the op?
Did they reduce them via a carbon tax or similar mechanism?
If so what were/are the prices?
How do their systems compare to Australia's?
How much will it mitigate the change?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

power bills have been rising mainly due to distribution prices rising dramatically

If I can recommend some reading on this subject then check out Mike Sandiford at TheConversation.edu.au, his commentary will make your head spin.

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-pi...ectricity-8125

[Krikkiter]

Crikey's new get fact on Australia's carbon price:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/22/...ricing-carbon/

Lefty crap no doubt.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Crikey's new get fact on Australia's carbon price:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/22/...ricing-carbon/

Lefty crap no doubt.

From a crappy left publication.

By the way, anything Tim Flannery says should be taken with a pillar of salt.

[bit_pattern]

It amazes me that someone on a sceptic forum would think that poisoning the well constitutes an argument.

[Laton]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

By the way, anything Tim Flannery says should be taken with a pillar of salt.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

From a crappy left publication.

By the way, anything Tim Flannery says should be taken with a pillar of salt.

Okay, I'm so curious I gotta ask. Purposefully exaggerating the 'grain' of the original idiom I can understand, but why choose pillar to replace it?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by uvar

Okay, I'm so curious I gotta ask. Purposefully exaggerating the 'grain' of the original idiom I can understand, but why choose pillar to replace it?

Good point. The story of Lot is full of sexism, misogyny, violence and hatred.

Just saying.......

[bit_pattern]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/23/...ning-industry/

[lionking]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...718590&thumb=1

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/23/...ning-industry/

Hilarious.

[bit_pattern]

First Dog has a special place in my heart

[uvar]

ABC: "Australia's carbon price will be linked to that in the European Union from 2015 under a deal announced by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today."

Most importantly the price floor that would have been part of the ETS won't be part of it.

This article from The Australian is from just before the official announcement, but mentions an interesting point (emphasis mine):

Quote:

The Gillard government hopes to link the Australian emissions trading scheme to the EU market, where carbon is currently trading at about $9.80 a tonne compared to the fixed starting price in Australia of $23 and the floor price from 2015 of $15.

On the other hand, the deal and price floor removal weren't exactly an unexpected development.)

Quick reactions from people smarter than me (than I?):

• Possibly much bigger demand from EU buying permits here than vice versa
• Purchases on the international market would likely have to be compensated if Abbott was able to abolish the ETS

Also saw a link to this (paywalled) March article about various ETS pricing predictions, suggesting the EU scheme might reach $40 a tonne by the end of the decade but others might fall to $5.

ETA: An 'official' release from the EU side.

[Hallo Alfie]

So much for the Yabbie's 'business certainty in pricing carbon'(owtte)

Another lie. Unbelievable.

The ABC reports:

Quote:

Mr Combet said the long-term average European carbon price was around $23 per tonne.

I would be interested to see where he gets that figure - which (coincidentally ) is our current price and conveniently and presumably means forward budget estimates need no downward adjustment.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

So much for the Yabbie's 'business certainty in pricing carbon'(owtte)

Another lie. Unbelievable.

The ABC reports:


I would be interested to see where he gets that figure - which is (coincidentally ) our current price, which presumably means forward budget estimates need no adjustment.

It was over 30 Euros a few years ago, so while it's not representative of the current situation it might be technically correct as an average.

I would think that this would increase business certainty in the carbon price, with less uncertainty about its long-term existence (if simply because it will be harder/more expensive to undo) and, based on others' commentary, cheaper prices and more demand than the previous proposal.

On the other hand, even the partial link only takes effect in 2015 (unless that's moved forward as well), so the next few years will remain fixed-price and existing business plans/budgets shouldn't be affected.

[Hallo Alfie]

How does this give certainty? It actually removes some especially around the price.

The current price is currently $9-(approx) and has dropped in line with the markets from $30-. This is called market correction and reflects the true price.

I would still like to know from which orifice he gets the forward figure of $23 per tonne?

[bit_pattern]

Hahaha. Embedded! Let's see Phoney Tony try and follow through with his "blood pledge" now