This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new
The little bit I heard of Ms Gillard on Q&A this week made it sound like she had memorised some theory book on how all this will work. I couldn't stomach the whole thing but what I heard was quite sickening. It sounded like something out of a fairy tale book where all this is going to magically fall into place. But, sadly, it's no fairy tale and she is quite happy to hurt the people of Australia to satisify her personal whim for another tax.

While it's her own choice not to have a family and I acknowledge that right, however, it doesn't give her real life experience in juggling finances as families have to do.

How could she possibly know what it's like to have children begging for the latest technologies, schools that are relentless in their persuit of fund raising, the cost of medicines, clothes, shoes, recreational activities, etc, etc.? Oh and that's without mentioning food when they eat you out of house and home...lol

I personally don't think she has any idea whatsoever how her "working families" struggle to make ends meet these days and that they can easily afford to give her a bit more so she can compensate those that don't work. I've noticed her catch phrase of "working families" seems to have been left behind (that didn't move forward with her...)
 
Trouble is, the bit carbon emitting companies are producting products sold into global markets. They simply can not raise prices just because their costs went up. Either they absorb the cost increase or relocate.

Worth noting in that context that electricity alone can be up to 25% of the final selling price of such products and is a larger cost of production than labour. Add in raw materials, labour and the cost of building the plant in the first place and there's not a lot of room to tolerate higher energy costs.
 

Absolutely agree.

Going it alone with a carbon tax is going to badly hurt, perhaps kill, a lot of Australian companies trying to compete in international markets.

I think one of the arguments put up in favour of going it alone is that Australian companies will get a jump in adopting low carbon technologies. I'll accept that some will, but that will take time and before then the hurt to others is going to be too great.
 
Totally agree, Sails.
I feel quite sick when I hear her say that the carbon tax is designed to make people change their behaviour.
We already have thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill. These are not people who are wildly extravagant with electricity use. They are people just needing to cook, do the washing, provide heating in winter etc on very low incomes.
How does she, living oh so grandly in The Lodge, with no worries about paying for anything, suggest these people are further going to alter their behaviour to accommodate her additional impost via the carbon tax?

The constant clarion call from the wealthy inner city greenies et al that 'we all must change' is pure rubbish. These people are not trying to juggle a budget, worrying about paying something as small as a school outing etc. They have plenty of disposable income so feel oh so superior about being able to call on the rest of the population to make unreasonable sacrifices.
 

One minute Labor are left wing loonies with socialist policy's designed to take Australia into Communism aided by the greens but hang on now they are cruel fascists hurting the poor and disadvantaged.

All this and we still haven't seen the details............
 
Where do you stand on Labor taking their carbon tax too the polls as the Coalition did with the GST ?
 
drsmith said:
Where do you stand on Labor taking their carbon tax too the polls as the Coalition did with the GST ?
Click to expand...

If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose.

I also expect this Labor government to lose the next election if the current momentum is maintained by the coalition.

But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.


I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.
 
IFocus said:
I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.
Click to expand...
I notice neither you nor any other of the government's admirers have yet responded to my question regarding how the carbon tax will actually affect the climate, especially when the major emitters are now very unlikely to do anything similar.
 
IFocus said:
If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose.
Click to expand...
They would now they have attempted to shaft the Australian people with it.

IFocus said:
I also expect this Labor government to lose the next election if the current momentum is maintained by the coalition.
Click to expand...
That perhaps gives the Coalition a little too much credit. The Gillard Government has crapped in its own nest on this, with a little help from the Greens.

IFocus said:
But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.
Click to expand...
While both parties have so-called strategies to manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that does not justify lying on such a major policy area as Julia Gillard has done.
 
For the people here who support the tax, why does Australia have to take lead with this? We have a higher cost of living than the U.S by allot so imposing such a blanket tax seems strange... Whos pushing this tax? Whos the Gillard puppet master.. I know shes pretty cheap .. Her promo for afl with obama in the white house was a national
Embarassment....
 
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the power industry who doesn't see the future now as being primarily about coal and gas following the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.

There don't seem to be too many people expecting to see new nuclear plants and carbon cuts actually happening in democratic, developed countries such as Australia anytime soon. A bit of geothermal, solar and wind plus a new hydro plant or two maybe, but the future is primarily focused on coal and/or gas (which one depends on the specific country etc).

From a strategic national interest perspective, it would make far more sense for Australia to be actively pursuing technology development in hot dry rocks (geothermal), underground coal gasification and thorium nuclear reactors rather than worrying about CO2 emissions per se. All of those can supply reliable baseload electricity, with far fewer environmental hazards than conventional nuclear (uranium) reactors or coal-fired boilers.

If commercialised and adopted, they would solve the CO2 emissions issue from electricity generation without penalising the overall economy. In that context, underground coal gasification and geothermal likely offers the greatest potential in Australia, with thorium more a question of mineral exports to overseas users.
 
MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs - that's an awful lot of nurses, teachers and policemen by the way. And what difference has it made to the climate? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Because Australia's emissions are a piddling 1.38% of the global total, it wouldn't make a skerrick of impact even if we reduced our emissions to ZERO overnight.

THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS TO DO IT AS WELL.

What happened in Copenhagen in 2009? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

This is all about a distribution of tax and another income stream of an ever increasing desperate government.

Senior Australian company executives are concerned that the federal government's proposed carbon tax has lifted Australian sovereign risk concerns among international investors, and say the surprise shift in policy has damaged the relationship between the government and the corporate world, according to The Australian newspaper.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...n-risk-concerns-pd20110316-EYR4P?OpenDocument
 

Yes,coal is Australia's major asset. Without it we wouldn't be the lucky country.

I believe the only reason resources haven't been diverted from uranium nuclear reactors to the development of thorium reactors is because it is no good for bombs. This may be why India's nuclear arsenal has fallen behind Pakistan's.
 
Or maybe thorium is new. It will have its day soon enough.
 
Calliope said:
I believe the only reason resources haven't been diverted from uranium nuclear reactors to the development of thorium reactors is because it is no good for bombs.
Click to expand...
Power generation is a fairly political subject in many countries and it seems to be generally accepted conventional wisdom that the development of nuclear power was at least partly aimed at encouraging public acceptance of nuclear technologies in general.

It's not as though there was any pressing reason to stop using coal when the first commercial nuclear power station went online in 1957. But the (false) promise of electricity "too cheap to meter" provided a very valid justification for building reactors at a time whne the public associated the word "nuclear" with war.

Worth noting that it was back in the early 1970's, that's before the first oil crisis, before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and before there was any real concern over CO2, that the economics of uranium reactors had utilities seriously worried to the point that they lost interest in building them.

Looking at countries which have viable alternatives (coal, hydro etc) and where government is not directly involved in building power stations, interest in nuclear power has been dead for years not due to concerns about safety, but simply due to economics. The oil crises of the 1970's did not result in a single new reactor being built in the US, for example. Every single plant they have in operation was already either built or under construction before the average person had even heard of OPEC.

Interesting times ahead in the energy industry me thinks... Nuclear looks dead following the situation in Japan meanwhile renewables can't realistically ramp up to actually replace nuclear / fossil fuels yet. Which leaves burning coal and gas as the way ahead...
 
If only JU-LIAR could come clean and either answer some of the questions or take it all to an election now, seeking a mandate for a Carbon Dioxide tax. If it is so good in her eyes, what has got to fear?
She says the majority of the world have gone to a Carbon tax. It is an absolute lie. Some 30 out of 180 countries have a carbon tax and many are waking up to the fact that it is not working. So those 30 odd will now start to diminish.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/gillard_deceives_again_i_am_not_alone
 
IFocus said:
If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose....
Click to expand...

IMO, that makes it totally despicable then - I thought democracy meant representing the people? No wonder there is so little respect for this PM.

If Howard had done this with his backflip on GST, there would have been huge voter anger and contempt. At least he had the decency to let the people decide.

And, as you mention, labor are most unlikely to win the next election in the wake of this deception. So that means, this dictatorial PM (dictatorial because she doesn't have to consult with her MPs) can bring it in and deliberately leave a huge mess to the coalition to try and fix?

As it will cost business to set up for this tax, it will make it difficult to repeal. How stupid is it to bring in a tax one year before the next election that you know you are going to lose and then leave a huge financial mess for someone else to fix up?

This was no little white lie - it is not only a brazen deception, but also shows no respect for this country or her people, IMO.

Are labor supporters so pumped up with propoganda that they can no longer think for themselves or see the inherrent dangers to this country?...
 
This typifies what's wrong with politics in general. Instead of looking for a way to source next generation energy that will stimulate the world's economy with proper (non speculative and fairytale) growth and inspire the next generation of innovations etc, we are overburdening an already struggling consumer with a counter productive tax on energy, that should become less expensive and cleaner over time.

We truly are reliving a stagnant period and it's just that we haven't seen anything better yet that prevents us from believing that we aren't reliving a dark non innovative period of mankind. I guess having fancy mobiles and great apps makes us think that we are in a period of enlightenment. And yet if we had to go to the moon in a year we wouldn't be able to do this.

Energy should be a relatively cheap anomaly and it should be used to spur innovations in all fields and disciplines to create 'things' that we haven't even dreamed-up yet. That way governments can chip away with taxes on services and innovations that we use to better mankind, NOT overburden us with taxes on energy that will only serve to stifle growth.
 
IFocus said:
But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.


I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.
Click to expand...

Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
13K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
13K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
3K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
18K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...