Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

st, he asked for evidence.

What evidence do you have to back up your opinion?

As usual, none

[straight talker]

rb he asked me to show him where the greens said about living like gypsies and i said that i never wrote anywhere that the greens said that. if you read the comment that i wrote properly you would see that i said if they had there way that is the way they would have us live!! thats the feeling i get when i listen to old backdoor bob. Read the comment next time before you have something to say maybe??!!

[redandblack]

I did read it, st. I respectfully think you have misread it.

You said you thought the Greens would have us living like Gypsies.

He asked you for evidence to support that.

Reasonable question, I would have thought?

[straight talker]

he said he was searhing for this reference and i would have thought that i made it quite clear that it was my opinion that this is the way they would have us live if they could! cant chop a tree down cant put an industry there, charge companies this and that,cant build here cant build there. is that the type of comment you were looking for?!

[redandblack]

We know it's your opinion, mate

We just want some evidence to back it up!!!!!

[straight talker]

i think i mentioned some in my last comment. that is the path i was heading down which im sure you understand.

[straight talker]

Wow i see Germany are building more coal fired power plants!! suprise suprise.. Is this the way to reduce carbon? Juliar really thinks they are doing something about this around the world!!

[Psyber]

Countries that were serious about reducing CO2 emissions would be looking at modern, safe, melt-down proof, nuclear technology.
Look at the safety record of France and its low CO2 emissions for electrical energy production.
Fukushima was overdue for decommissioning before the Tsunami.

[redandblack]

st, here's an article posted today by someone from overseas.

He's not a Labor person, he's a former editor of the Financial Times of London and a former Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry. In other words, about as far away philosophically from the Australian Governemnt as you can get.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2813856.html

Will you take the time to read it? It won't take long and you can let us know your thoughts, as he says he doesn't know what all the fuss is about in Australia about this issue.

[straight talker]

yes i read it and the believers will listen to it and automatically think he is correct. He is a career journo much like Bolt. I also see he admits that there were job losses in the steel industry in Britain. So how can gillard and swan tell us there will be no job losses here in Australia?

[Q.]

Here's one for the memoids like straight talker:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/28/calling-time-on-the-lie-of-sovereign-risk/

Tony Abbott picked up the theme, and during the election campaign claimed Australia was a poorer destination for foreign investors than African countries such as Zambia, and he’s ramped it up further since then, telling miners in Perth that “for the first time in generations there is now a sovereign risk, a question mark over our country”. Joe Hockey has echoed the theme, insisting the government is creating “sovereign risk” via the carbon pricing scheme. The clown prince of climate deniers, Chris Monckton, got in on the act last week with a similar line.

So, how’s all this sovereign risk stuff playing out then?

Well, yesterday’s Deloitte Access Investment Monitor showed investment “both in terms of the value of projects under way and the value of those in the pipeline has rarely ever looked better. The value of projects in the Investment Monitor database has lifted by 8.4% over the past three months to $831.7 billion”. And investment in our mostly foreign-owned mining sector dominates. Plainly, neither the mining tax nor the carbon pricing package — remember it was announced in February that the government intended to establish a carbon price from July 1 next year — have done anything to slow the flood of investment, domestic and foreign-sourced, into a sector that claimed the mining tax would drive it offshore.

And then there’s the dollar. Our manufacturing sector is on its knees praying for a bit of sovereign risk to switch off the jets underneath the Aussie, but nothing doing. Certainly not while the Republican Right appears hell-bent on smashing the US economy for the sake of spiting Barack Obama. Between the sclerotic Europeans and their state of denial about PIIGS and right-wing nut jobs in the US, the Australian dollar is now a “safe haven”, according to screen jockeys as reported in the interior pages of the financial press.




Hmmm, so much for a collapsing economy

[straight talker]

THE Greens must have been so astonished by the brilliance of the carbon tax that they just ignored page 18 of the Treasury’s overview.

The modelling, which the government relies on to back up just about every fiscal decision it makes, reveals an interesting twist to the carbon tax tale.

People may have been allowed to believe this carbon tax was all about reducing Australia’s annual carbon emissions. Not necessarily. It was about reducing our annual “growth” in emissions.

According to Treasury, our total annual emissions will go up. That’s right, Australia will pump out more carbon annually in 2020 than now, even with a carbon price and ETS.

According to Treasury, our annual emissions are 578 million tonnes a year. By 2020, with a carbon tax and an ETS, our annual emissions will be 621 million tonnes. The difference is that without the tax, those emissions would have risen to 679 million tonnes. And this was always the case. So, while the government can claim it will reduce emissions by a net 50 million tonnes because of the carbon tax, our total annual emissions will still be higher in 2020 than they are now.

Even with a carbon tax, Australia will not be able to find enough domestic reductions to meet its target of reducing annual emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels and instead will have to buy carbon farming credits, new renewables and go to Europe to buy 100 million tonnes of abatement schemes to reach our target.

Coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt estimates this will cost taxpayers about $3.7 billion in today’s terms, which is money which will not be pumped back into the Australian economy.

Not that the Coalition has a plan to reduce growth emissions by any larger margin. But this scheme, for Labor at least, was never just an environmental manifesto.

Julia Gillard and Greg Combet have crafted a document that is devilishly political in its dimension. To Combet’s credit, he has managed to outsmart the Greens who walked away from the deal not being able to admit that they had agreed to a scheme which was not a lot different to the CPRS which they had opposed twice.

The PM now has a document with which she can finally try and wedge Tony Abbott.

The PM says there is no money tree. Well there may have been. But the PM has put a chainsaw through it and doled out its proceeds as toothpicks to the poor in a major redistribution of wealth across the nation.

Gillard’s argument is that she has divided the proceeds of the tax to redistribute to 90 per cent of households as tax cuts or family payments. She said money would be going to those most in need. But it also serves a significant Labor political need.

She has drawn a line around those voters she believes Labor needs to back and will weld them to her government for the next two years with pension payments, family payment rises and tax cuts.

The carbon tax was a sop to Labor’s Left, and the compensation an appeal to Labor’s true working-class base which had otherwise abandoned it.
Think i am getting there with copying and pasting. justa bit more work to do.
27 comments | Permalink

[straight talker]

mmmmm very interesting dont you think??

[straight talker]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... with_wayne

[redandblack]

No worries with the copy and paste situation, mate, but it's usual to say where it's sourced from.

Your last link is to Tim Blair, again a totally anti-Government 'journalist'.

If you think it's unbiased, just look at the headline and it gives you a good idea that it's just another Murdoch hack diatribe.

[straight talker]

what about the article from simon benson above it? il put another on here now as there is some interesting things in there about the green led governmenhttp://blogs.news.com.au/daily ... promise/tb which i have been talking about have a read!

[straight talker]

funny how our emissions/pollution are going to rise dont you think?

[redandblack]

Mate, everything you refer to is directly from News Ltd, an organisation who have declared their aim is to destroy The Greens.

How about widening your reading a little?

[straight talker]

another interesting article and doesnt matter where they come from as they are fact http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... 1hv8i.html

[straight talker]

NO JOBS LOST?? http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/articl ... -news.html