Gillard’s desperate carbon tax is really neo-socialist wealth redistribution
Bob Brown and Julia Gillard’s carbon tax is a monument to the irrationality that so often infects beleaguered governments. Rather than pursue considered policy processes that take into account the full potential impact on the nation, a government under pressure responds to trials with a haphazard approach.
Gillard’s government has already proved itself to be even more incompetent than its predecessor with a spectacular list of policy failures including the East Timor solution, the citizens’ assembly and the cash for clunkers scheme.
Two days ago, they released the details of their latest folly – a price on pollution called a carbon tax. Or that’s what they call it.
It is not a price on pollution or a tax on carbon. It is in fact a new tax on carbon dioxide; that colourless and odourless gas that is entirely necessary for life on Earth.
However, while carbon dioxide might be an important plant food, in this instance it has been declared the primary source of sustenance for Gillard’s big government.
To put it bluntly, the Gillard government has run out of your money to spend. They have raised the nation’s debt ceiling twice already and have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to pursue their wasteful programs. Even the socialist left faction of the Labor Party (of which Gillard is a member) knows that this cannot be allowed to continue. Left unchecked, national debt can bankrupt a nation or destroy a national currency within a very short time frame.
There are some notable examples of this malaise afflicting western European nations with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy all unable or unlikely to pay their outstanding accounts.
Australia is a long way from that scenario but then again, so were these other countries when the decline set in.
Our national challenge is how to return the budget to surplus and start repaying Labor’s debt. Where the Coalition favours more prudent expenditure and smaller government, Labor simply wants to tax you more.
Their most recent foray into the world of big tax and neo-socialist wealth redistribution is their so-called carbon tax.
It will ensure that no family escapes the burden imposed by rising electricity, food and transport costs while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.
While the tax may directly apply to only 500 companies, the flow-on effects will impact every small business and every electricity user, while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.
We will see the disappearance of the single competitive advantage that Australia has over virtually every other nation – cheap coal-fired power, while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.
Gillard will in fact be closing down power stations in pursuit of some ridiculous and unviable green dream that we can fuel our industry and lifestyle through wind and sun power alone.
This fanciful ideal has been demonstrated as a green mirage in countries similarly afflicted by governments bound and blindfolded by the radical green agenda.
How can we believe that a brand new tax will leave us miraculously better off? How will exporting jobs and industry overseas make Australia a more prosperous and productive nation? How will exporting emissions save the world from the dreaded carbon dioxide?
The answer to all of this of course is that it won’t. This tax is a grab for your money, plain and simple. Gillard and her brethren in the Greens want to impose a tax that will grow in its rapacious voracity while bribing you to accept it in its early stages.
You can guarantee that in the years ahead, as her tax receipts grow, as industry departs our shores and more families struggle under the Gillard legacy, the one-off sweeteners will be forgotten.
They will be replaced by the bitterness of having been deceived and conned by the most irresponsible and untrustworthy government in Australia’s history.
Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.
having just emigrated here from yahoo 7 i am surprised at the civility from both sides that i have seen here.I am by my own admission a left leaning voter but what i have read here so far,forgetting sigh and his comments,is still at worst ,i think dignified, and even sigh was not insulting.Well done to all.
If only there was some way of increasing Co2 absorption, insteaded of using this ghastly tax. I’m going to sit under a TREE and thInk about it.
WHY DOES NOBODY MENTION GLOBAL DEFORRESTATION? TREES ABSORB CARBON DIOXIDE. PLANT TREES, ( they are also good for Storing water and stopping floods, they look good as well). To easy a solution? Sorry for the suggesting it.
That’s actually part of Tony Abbott’s DIRECT ACTION plan ( along with spending billions of dollars ). Problem is, it’d take a MASSIVE amount of trees and there’s not enough fertile land and he hasn’t figure out where the water’s coming from. But it doesn’t matter. … There’s a tinge of green in all of us and he’s appealing to it.
I don’t get it: If most conservatives believe climate change is a hoax and think that any money spent on carbon reduction is a waste, why hasn’t Tony Abbott’s plan of spending 10 billion or more the reduce carbon emissions become an issue also?
Yes, it’s crazy.
I think that many people holding this position simply haven’t given any real thought to the issue.
I’m hoping that by the time we come to the election in two years time, people will actually do the sums and realise they will be worse off under Abbott’s plan.
A message to all free thinkers: Conservatives are by definition adverse to change or innovation. They live in a world of fear and rigid convictions … so it’s pointless trying to convince them that human made global warming is real or worth addressing. End of debate.
If theres an earthquake,must be global warming.If theres a heatwave,must be global warming. If theres a drought,global warming.Poverty in Africa….global warming.Everything is blamed on global warming.How conveniant. For millions of years,the earth has gone thru cycles of warming and cooling.For those on the Left,the truth hurts.
If the television doesn’t work, it must be the carbon tax . If the car won’t start , it must be the carbon tax. If the canary died, it must the carbon tax. If you suddenly find you’re going bald, it must be the carbon tax … no,wait… I think that’d be caused by boat people.
Troy,John Howard took the GST to an election.Julia Gillard didn’t take the carbon tax to an election.Come on mate,you know I’m right.People who work hard want to know their effort will get them somewhere,not be met with yet more taxes that make it impossible to make ends meet. Sure,the big end of town will be the main targets of the tax,but they will pass on the costs.Every segment of the economy will pass on the costs. Australians produce more pollution per capita yes,but as theres far less of us,our contribution to global warnming is miniscule at best.Been to China lately? The onus should be on them to lead the way.Think about it.
‘Big end, schmig end. When does the ‘little end’ of town get a chance to pass on the cost ? Why does the buck always stop with the ‘little end’? Oh ,thank you very much ‘big end’ We know you’re doing it tough. So it’s our shout. We’ll absorb the cost. No worries. After all, it’d look too much like socialism if you had to stick your hand in your own pocket.
And in the clean energy dept. I think China is making more of an effort than us.
I think China is making more of an effort in the clean energy department than us.
According to Harvard University and Tsinghua University, China is on track to meet all of its electricity demands through wind power by 2030. So we’ve got to loose that lazy old ” Why should we do anything when Chin’s not” cliché.
DONALD (SA) You’re right. Here’s me thinking that if the majority of climate scientist agree on human made global warming there’s got to be some truth in it. Folly. I should have known all along that the real reason for their consensus was all part of a good old fashion socialist conspiracy. I mean, what else could it be? (Damned commies… give ‘em a degree and they want to put us collective farms.)
And it was crass of me to describe NEARLY all talk back radio callers as ‘intellectually deficient sycophants’ . I was wrong and I’m going to have to live with that. So it’s time I had a little talk with myself… take time out to see the other side… catch up on a bit of Fox News…I don’t know…so many options.
Kevin, drollness is not exactly your forte.
I was just trying to lighten things up a little … what with all this hysteria over a little bitty tax.
To the lefties responding on this site:
1. What effect will the Carbon (CO2) tax in Australia have on Australian/Global climate? What is the measurable outcome if this is it’s objective?
2. Please provide the empirical data that shows that the world is currently warming catastrophically, that sea levels currently are rising at catastrophic rates and that the GBR is dying in a catasrophic manner?
3. At what time down the track will renewable energy sources replace coal/gas/nuclear? 5yrs, 10 yrs, 50yrs, never? When? Or is this the usual unrealistic pie in the sky dreams and wishful thinking for which the left is renound in history?
4. By how much will China, India and the USA reduce its CO2 emissions over the next 10yrs, 50yrs ? When will these countries stop using coal for cheap energy and start using renewables? 20 years, 100years, never?
Lefties live in Wonderland.
In 10 yrs time we all be angry at how this scam went as far as it did. And we’ll pay for this stupidity.
Btw can you indicate where in Australia we are suffering from “Carbon Pollution”?
Hi Deric,
Some good questions. Let me do my best to try and answer them.
1. What effect will the Carbon (CO2) tax in Australia have on Australian/Global climate? What is the measurable outcome if this is it’s objective?
Deric, Australia is not a closed ecosystem. You’re right. There is no straight path between carbon tax = cooler summers if that’s what you’re trying to get at.
Climate change is a global problem, which requires a global solution. As part of the global community, Australia has a part to play.
The whole world needs to lower it’s CO2 output. When the whole world does this, there will certainly be a measurable outcome.
Now before you tell me the rest of the world isn’t doing anything, get your facts straight. Europe already has an ETS. China is making the biggest investments into renewable energy than any other country. Many US states are going it alone and putting in place climate action policies.
Australia, being one of the richest countries in the world, and the biggest polluter-per-capitor in the world, has a moral obligation to “do the right thing”.
2. Please provide the empirical data that shows that the world is currently warming catastrophically, that sea levels currently are rising at catastrophic rates and that the GBR is dying in a catasrophic manner?
Deric, the best source of empirical data that I would recommend is the UN IPCC. The reports that the IPCC produce are extremely detailed and backed by hard science. http://www.ipcc.ch/
3. At what time down the track will renewable energy sources replace coal/gas/nuclear? 5yrs, 10 yrs, 50yrs, never? When? Or is this the usual unrealistic pie in the sky dreams and wishful thinking for which the left is renound in history?
Deric, when the US said they would send a man to the moon, I bet you would have been one of the people saying this was “wishful thinking”.
I have a lot of confidence in the ingenuity of mankind. You’re right, it’s a challenge, but just saying “its too hard, we shouldn’t bother” is such a defeatist attitude.
And if you actually look into the facts regarding this stuff, I think you would be surprised.
Melbourne Uni did a study into exactly this. They concluded that switching to 100% renewables was possible within 10 years, and set out a detailed timeline on exactly how it would happen.
Here is the paper: http://bit.ly/a5K55a
Malcolm Turnbull was there at the launch of this paper.
4. By how much will China, India and the USA reduce its CO2 emissions over the next 10yrs, 50yrs ? When will these countries stop using coal for cheap energy and start using renewables? 20 years, 100years, never?
A lot I hope, and soon.
You’re right pointing out that climate change is a global problem.
But at the end of the day, we can only control what Austraila does, and try to influence other countries to do the same.
Australia, being one of the richest countries in the world, and the biggest polluter-per-capitor in the world, has a moral obligation to “do the right thing”.
1. In a roundabout way you admit that a CT in Australia will have NO effect on the climate. It’s useless for what it is intended to do.
Your reason then is that it is a ‘noble thing to do’ eventhough it is climatically meaningless. This is not what the government has stated as the objective of the tax. Gillard has scaremongered about rising temperatures and sea-levels and we have to stop this catastrophy with a unique economy-wide CT.
This must be the first time in Australia’s history that we are imposing a economically significant tax for non-pragmatic economically damaging reasons – for ‘noble reasons’. This is silly left-wing ideology.
2. In spite of your attempt to show otherwise the facts are that the major emitters in the world will continue to INCREASE their CO2 emissions as far as the eye can see into the future. That is the real projection for these emitters. There is NO reduction. They are increasing coal fired power stations (bigger and better) in China and India despite the Gillard deception in this regard.
3. Are you so naive as to think Australia will affect the pragmatic economic plans of countries like China, USA and India for example? They are not into economic self-flagellation (disruption) like us.
4. I will be willing to bet that renewables will not even come close to replacing fossil fuel power in the next 50 years let alone in an incredible 10 years.
5. Why do AGW advocates have to resort to deception if the basis of their science is factual? I refer to two instances of deception.
a. The use of the term ‘Carbon Pollution”. Give me an example of carbon pollution in Australia? CO2 (a life giving colorless, odourless, tasteless, naturally occuring gas) is not elemental carbon (black sooty stuff in the minds of the public). Imagery is deception. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is pollution in the current environmment. Quite the opposite it is vital to the survival of life. It is not poisonous and life destroying as is implied by the word pollution. Deception.
b. Per capita index. The climate doesn’t recognize this index, the climate reconizes total volumetric quantities. What this index illogically says is that a molecule of Australian CO2 is more climatically impacting than a Chinese CO2 molecule. That is ’scientifically’ unstainable to be kind to the index. The per capita index is pure nonsense climatically and totally misleading
> 1. In a roundabout way you admit that a CT in Australia will have NO effect on the climate.
I certainly did not say that.
> It’s useless for what it is intended to do.
I’m sorry, that’s not what the Australian Treasury and other economists say. The Australian treasury believe that the ETS will be extremely effective in lowering output of CO2. That is what it is intended to do.
I believe Australian Treasury and expert economists before you Deric.
> Your reason then is that it is a ‘noble thing to do’ even though it is climatically meaningless.
Again, that is not what I said. NASA, CSIRO, UN IPCC tell me that reducing CO2 is certainly not climatically meaningless.
I believe these scientific organisations before you Deric.
The rest of your point 1 is simply commentary based on the above distortions that I have poitned out, so I won’t respond to that.
> 2. In spite of your attempt to show otherwise the facts are that the major emitters in the world will continue to INCREASE their CO2 emissions…..
Deric, regarding China and India, you are conveniently ignoring that these countries are developing nations.
Do you know what the average wage is in China, Deric?
According to the world bank in 2009 the average yearly income was $3650.
Do you know how much CO2 they put out per capita? 5 T per capita.
Do you get it yet Deric?
Lets compare that to Australia. The average yearly income is $43,770. The CO2 per capita is 17.7 T !!!
That’s over 3 times what China is producing per capita.
So China is growing fast. And it’s absolutely true that we need to put a lid on China’s CO2 emissions.
But to try and use that as an EXCUSE for not taking action in Australia, is frankly laughable, and entirely misleading.
> 3. Are you so naive as to think Australia will affect the pragmatic economic plans of countries like China, USA and India for example? They are not into economic self-flagellation (disruption) like us.
Deric, are you so naive to think that China, US and Inda will *not* take action in this area? They are not into destroying our climate for our children like you are.
> 4. I will be willing to bet that renewables will not even come close to replacing fossil fuel power in the next 50 years let alone in an incredible 10 years.
I would gladly take that bet with you Deric. The science is against you.
> 5. Why do AGW advocates have to resort to deception if the basis of their science is factual? I refer to two instances of deception.
a. The use of the term ‘Carbon Pollution”.
Hey Deric, I agree with you. I guess the reason these terms are thrown around is to make it easier for people to understand such a difficult topic.
But I agree that clearer terms should be used.
> b. Per capita index. The climate doesn’t recognize this index, the climate reconizes total volumetric quantities. What this index illogically says is that a molecule of Australian CO2 is more climatically impacting than a Chinese CO2 molecule. That is ’scientifically’ unstainable to be kind to the index. The per capita index is pure nonsense climatically and totally misleading
Deric, are you serious? Are you seriously suggesting that Australia has every right to pollute the same gross quantity as china, even though China has over 1 billion people, and australia has 20 million.
You have got to be kidding me. That is such a self-indulgent attitude.
Sorry Deric, you really lost me with that last comment. You had some excellent points, but that last one makes me just a little angry.
Brief addendum:
Puttng man on the moon took over 60 years of technological advancement in the field of aviation and rocket science. Note that putting man on the moon again has been ruled out – it’s too bloody expensive!
Solar and wind energy are intermittant to say the least and are significantly recalcitrant in terms of capture and storage in quantities necessary to make these sources major nation wide base load contributors (which is what matters) for industry and large scale domestic consumption. Again incredible hyper-optimism is required in order to believe that these renewables can replace low cost fossil fuels in the next 10-50 years.
Btw I am a strong advocate for nuclear power. AGW advocates cannot be serious in their claim of climate catastrophy because of CO2 if they dismiss this source of energy out of hand.
Hey Deric,
You’re right in saying 10 years is an optimistic timeline. But our top academics say it is possible.
I know Malcolm Turnbull has shown an interest in UniMelb’s 10 year renewable roadmap http://bit.ly/a5K55a
I too am a big supporter of nuclear, Deric. I fully agree with you that it needs to be a big part of Australia’s energy future.
Sorry Michael – I guess your ‘altruism and faith’ obviously trumps my ‘reality’.
Thanks for the conversation. All the best.
No problem Deric, thank you also.
What you call “altruism and faith” seem to be shared by John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull, so I feel I am in good company
How did you know I lived in Wonderland?
We … certainly didn’t vote for a carbon tax. Now she thinks she has a mandate to govern and is making her own decisions “for the good of Australia”. Sounds more like a Dictatorship than a Democracy. Forget the Republic idea.
Cory,
The views you state here are in direct contradiction of the worlds leading scientific bodies, and in direct contradiction to the prevalent view of Australian economists.
I will be believing the CSIRO and the Australian Treasury before you Cory.
While many conservatives from around the world have recognised the need for action on climate change, it is sad that many conservatives like yourself in Australia and US have their heads in the sand.
While conservatism in itself I have nothing against, it is the myopic opposition to progress that is just so predictable…. history repeating itself.
Lets remember that around the world conservatives … supported slavery, conservatives … opposed women’s suffrage, conservatives … opposed the 40-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor.
Cory, in 20 years time, we will look back and see your views as they were. You were willing to risk the future of this planet, for the sake a few dollars.
The views you state here are in direct contradiction of the worlds leading scientific bodies ………..
You for get to say who funded these leading scientist like the CSIRO? I will tell you “Government” government funding is ‘THE” lifeblood of these intuitions. With out it.. they would not exist.
Australia and US have their heads in the sand……
And people like you have their heads in the clouds
Lets remember that around the world conservatives … supported slavery, conservatives … opposed women’s suffrage, conservatives
I don’t know were you get your misguided information from but that is a ridiculous statement.
What are your credential to talk with authority on anything.
If you want to blindly follow the brainwashing gobbledygook speak parakeetd by idiot environmentalist … Go ahead. Maybe you will wake up to yourself one day when you acquire some worldly-wise experience.
> You for get to say who funded these leading scientist like the CSIRO? I will tell you “Government” government funding is ‘THE” lifeblood of these intuitions. With out it.. they would not exist.
KM, let me list some the scientific agencies that disagree with you: CSIRO, BoM, NASA, UN IPCC
If you want to believe conspiracy theories regarding these prominent agencies, that’s your choice.
> What are your credential to talk with authority on anything
KM. You’re right. I don’t have credentials. That’s why I defer to the experts in this field for my facts. CSIRO, NASA, BOM, UN IPCC.
If you want to believe conspiracy theories, that’s your choice.
> If you want to blindly follow the brainwashing gobbledygook speak parakeetd by idiot environmentalist … Go ahead.
KM. Show me why I should trust you over CSIRO, NASA, BOM, UN IPCC, and i will gladly follow your reasoning.
Unfortunately it is you being brainwashed by politicians.
The sad thing is, conservatives like John Howard recognised climate change and need to take action. How I wish sane conservative leaders were still around.
All this hysteria over being out of pocket about $10 or $15 a week that might otherwise go into a poker machine or spent on a packet of fags. Give the tax a go. If you don’t like it you can take comfort in knowing Tony Abbott will be PM in a couple of years and repeal the damn thing. Until then- calm down or call up Alan Jones or Ray Hadley on a daily basis and have cry.
Yeah Kev ! I agree!!
( sorry , just in case I’m on my own, I had to agree with myself…And I meant “have a cry”)
M.T,
I feel sorry for you and thank god that I am not so gullible.
Alan, this is a typical response from a conservative with no arguments to actually stand on.
Don’t call me gullible. Give me an argument to show me why I am gullible.
I’m pretty sure no-one can be bothered and has you pegged as one of the lefts ‘useful idiot’ pets. Please research some of your claims….you might be surprised at how much you got wrong in your original post…..
Hi Sigh,
I would be glad to provide references for my statements.
“The views you state here are in direct contradiction of the worlds leading scientific bodies”
http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf
“many conservatives from around the world have recognised the need for action on climate change”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Climate_Change_Programme
http://www.climateconservative.org/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
Please tell me what I have “got wrong”?
Sigh……
I have been called “gullible” and an “idiot” in this thread.
Yet no one has a willingness to explain why, nor engage on any type of logical debate.
Incredible!
Sigh, I am all ears, please tell me where I am going wrong? I am quite willing to hear you out and genuinely consider the conservative position.
But time and time again, I get no logical argument from climate-denier conservatives !!!
Sorry my friend … I’m also not interested in convincing you of anything. Next time change your tone and someone may bother to debate you…. Good luck.
You disappoint me Sigh.
I thought you had an opinion. But it is clear that you just have denial attitude.
I apologise if I come across with a “tone”. But you must understand the frustration when conservatives simply name call and don’t present anything of substance.
This website must have twitter and facebook enabled i would post of my page and no carbon tax facebook page among others
Thanks for the suggestion – you are right. This oversight will be corrected and the buttons added.
Cory this should be submitted to the News Of The World. Am sure it would make the front page of their Sunday edition,
What an inane response.
With no logical arguments to support the calculated destructiveness of Gillard/ Brown, jenlu is typical of the remnants of Labor/Greens supporters who either have their heads in the sand to avoid the unease they’re feeling, or just wish it would all go away so they could be assured of continued handouts from other Australians.
You’ll notice this type of response in many blogs at the moment. It’s the childish directive to “get a life”, or “get over it” as they see their reliant and parasitic lifestyle under threat.
Don’t worry, it’s Thursday collect tomorrow, so you’ll be safe for a short time yet.
Couple of reminder points:
* John Howard promised that there would be no GST before an election. We all know what happened.
* Liberals were in the process of introducing an ETS before their defeat in the 2007 election. The election was based on Work Place laws not ETS. Abbott has simply made a big issue of the carbon tax because he hasn’t got an alternative and wants to be able to mow the lawns at the lodge so badly.
*Liberals were the highest taxing govenment under John Howard – There was minimal expenditure under this government on infrastructure. It is easy to have a surplus when you are not spending.
* Under labour the amount of infrastructure development is quite significant.
This is just a scare campaign that has no credible alternative. The only thing Abbott has exposed is the selfish and self centred short term motives of our nation.You are probably the same people who vehemently opposed smoking in public and yet see something as significant as carbon monoxide as insignificant because ignorance is bliss when you may have to give a little for it. I am sure most of Australians can afford to peg back there spending a little, maybe take a couple of extra months to save up for your plasma tv for the sake of laying the foundation for a sustainable future for your children and grandchildren etc. To hell with playing politics. I would have supported Pauline Hanson or the sex party to ensure we started the process of improving our environment.
Wrong troy. Howard took the GST to an election. Get your facts right. Lefty spin dont work on this site pal.
But the carbon tax does not improve the environment. According to the government’s own figures, emissions are still going up under the tax.
As Alan has reminded Troy, John Howard took the GST to an election, where it was endorsed …
Troy cannot be serious about “serious infrastructure”. Do not three inquiries, and the three crushing outcomes about the BER not tell Troy something about the quality of that infrastructure?
Or is he thinking of the extra detention centres that have been necessary? Great infrastucture, eh Troy?
Yes, Troy, they’ve been spending alright, useless BER buildings, detention centres, and next, ripping out perfectly good copper wire ($11 BILLION) and power stations.
So now we are paying out $120 million per day in interest payments on the debts associated with useless infrastructure and ineffective “stimulus” handouts. What a disgrace.
When reliable evidence presents itself, sensible people act on it. The faux ’science’ of AGW has been exposed and Tony Abbott achieved a remarkable turnaround last August as he led the Coalition to near victory on the basis of turfing out any “Carbon” Tax or ETS.
Troy begins to give himself away in the rest of his little piece. Poor grammar and spelling abound. Carbon “monoxide” gets a mention for some unknown reason! Talk about “ignorance is bliss”, Troy!
If anyone was in doubt, the standard text then starts to appear; “laying the foundation for a sustainable future for your children and grandchildren..” Oh dear. Good thing you can copy something to avoid the spelling problems, Troy.
Finally, it may be a good idea to spare us the silly sanctimony about plasma sets and the like when you expose your scientific illiteracy, Troy.
That ‘credential’ is a pre-requisite on which Gillard relies to pull the wool over your eyes.
Damn straight Troy. Whatever happened to that overwhelming number of Australians who thought climate change was a concern. Are we that fickle?
Actually it probably went like this: ‘ DO SOMETHING ABOUT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!! … What? You mean we have to pay? Oh… umm.. well then… GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!
KEVIN wonders, “whatever happened to the overwhelming numbers of Australians who thought climate change was a concern”.
Perhaps Kevin’s memory needs a severe jog. And let’s test his hypothesis.
In August last, with no “Carbon” Tax promised by either party … the Coalition achieved a remarkable turnaround. There was no “cost” to consider since there was no Tax to worry about. Yet there was a huge swing to the Coalition position.
It would seem that many Australians did what Kevin has yet to do – start looking at both sides of the AGW debate.
It was not too hard to discern where the faux science and scurrilous practice existed, and since that time even more evidence has negated any AGW hypothesis. In fact, there never has been one hypothesis which has supported CO2 as a driving variable.
… Every few months, more contradictory evidence arrives – eg, decelerating sea level rise (since the last Ice Age), published in March (Journal of Coastal Research), and from August last year, “no acceleration of sea level rise for the past 100+ years” (Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans). Arctic ice – tracking on average..the list goes on and on.
But what is Kevin’s explanation? Why, the basest of human instincts of course. Money.
Well, speak for yourself, Kevin, but it may be an idea to keep up if you are able to comprehend scientific papers.
You wrote elsewhere on this page describing climate rationalist callers as being “intellectually deficient sycophants”. It is hardly the language of a person engaged in any serious research, or debate.
Give me a government that has a dig any day Donald me lad. Unfortunately there was a lot of ground to make up after an eleven year reign by a government that did nothing but brag about surpluses at the expense of decent roads, hospitals and school infrastructure etc etc and etc. Deep down you know that the projects undertaken by the current government are progressive despite some of the failings, including the NBN. The negative points are only exacerbated excessively by an opposition who are so negatively opposed to absolutely everything that it wouldn’t matter whether the current government had massive surpluses and zero unemployment. You are … meticulous about everything but lose focus of the big picture. Ohhh and, please use a red marker for any correction you would like to make!
Troy, after attempting a familiarity reminiscent of my college porter from long ago, indulges in some “deep down” dreaming where he fondly imagines how others think.
No arguments addressed of course, and not so curiously the handout line of the month appears as, “an opposition(sic) who(sic) are so negatively opposed to absolutely everything..”.
It would be a good idea to at least decently acknowledge the writer of that current ALP slogan.
Troy’s dreaming reaches its excited climax as he is swept away with a vision of, ‘the current government [with] massive surpluses and zero unemployment”.
Several years ago, most of Troy’s dream was reality until Rudd, Gillard and our genius Treasurer Swan blew it on rubbish infrastructure, pink batts, sheer squandering, white elephants and now, massive debt interest.
Time to wake up , Troy, and hold instead this massively incompetent government to account.
(And a red pen? How then could we contrast where the corrections were made…?)
Abbott will be struggling for friends …
You obviously missed the context of my previous comment.
One thing I am sure you will eventually understand is that the carbon tax will be insignificant as opposed to the 10%GST imposition on the household budget. I’ll keep my eye out for you in a couple of years. We will be discussing another coalition opposition leader without doubt at that time, if not before.
is it just me or does it seem like a really bad time to put our country in a vulnerable financial position when the rest of the world is talking about a second recession????? And Julia, just to let you know the investment market has lost again today- are you going to compensate my super, too????
what hypocrisy – we won’t use our carbon because ‘we care about the environment’ but we are very happy to sell it so others can pollute and we get their money and they get ownership of our land. i can’t wait 2 more years….really, please, what are we going to have in the end?
Please Australia…put the adults back in charge and save yourselves from this wasteful irresponsible mob of socialist wealth destroying ignoramuses…
The esteemed climate scientific community have failed to point out that Australia cannot help contribute to international CO2 reduction. CANNOT – the atmospheric structures will not allow us to do this, no matter how much Australia reduces its emissions! Australia exhales into two atmospheric ‘lungs’ the Ferrel cell off the south of the continent, and the Hadley Cell to the north. Those belts contain our all our emissions to the southern hemisphere. The phyto-plankton, a huge CO2 absorbing biomass, in the vast oceans, across which the Ferrel and Hadley belts cross – reabsorbs ALL the emissions that Australia emits. This is achieved even with and in conjunction with our atmospheric neighbour’s discharges in Southern Africa:- South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and in Southern America:- Chile, Argentine and Uruguay . All together the Southern Hemisphere’s net CO2 output is currently NIL. It will remain NIL, with whatever CO2 reduction Australia achieves. No meteorologist corrects the public impression that the Southern Hemisphere will reduce CO2 in the northern hemisphere? Why? The science is undisputed. This science is the once hypothesis of the veritable very George Hadley. The hypothesis has been subsequently reconfirmed, over, and over again. Noticeably, yet ignored, by the stall of air traffic fleets caught in the path of volcanic ash clouds emitted from Chile’s Puyehue eruptions. Reconfirmed daily when airlines coast across the jet-streams, to achieve valuable flight fuel consumption cost reductions. But now all this is totally ignored? Why is this? I’ve not heard a word of either the Hadley belt, the Ferrel belt, and of course the rigid ITCZ exclusion afforded by the Hadley cell?
Hear, hear! Cory’s hit the nail on the head re the Greens and Labour’s disgusting con and scam. They will bankrupt our country if they get their way. Every true blue Aussie must fight this money-grabbing soul-destroying scam and kick Julia Gillard and Bob Brown out of Government.
Are you best friends with Allan Jones, or what?
And so what if he is, Allen Jones is an Aussie Hero.
Allan Jones isn’t my hero. Shock jocks are all about … constant whinging and have serious ego issues. They’re there for dumb people who are too lazy to do their own research. I’ve tuned in a couple of times and noticed that nearly every caller is an intellectually deficient sycophant : ” Hi Allan …really love your show mate”. ” Gidday Ray… first time caller, long listener, mate”. Well congratulations!!!
I say switch to some nice music and keep your blood pressure down.
Cory,
You told the truth and nothing else. We need more of these type of truths. Thank you so much for a brilliant article.
All Corey has done is continued the propoganda. Let’s be honest here, Abbott is treating you all like hillbilly cronies. NO Carbon Tax it is bad…….no carbon tax it is bad……no carbon tax it is bad…………. If you don’t have the nouse or ability to look further into detail you will no doubt be hipnotized by Abbott’s condescending mantra. Look at labours opposition of the GST. It was just hot wind to win votes and scare people into swinging over. Had no significant impacts.
Had no significant impacts… The carbon tax had no significant impact on the environment, that is
You make sense Richard…..Let’s just sit on our hands and do nothing…..yep that will help. No need to start the process of counteracting climate change and at least be the the forerunner rather than the tail end internationally. Yep Richard…..Let’s not get a head start on renewable energy technology to ensure our economic stake in what is inevitably an impending industry…….No No No…..Let’s save in the short term, the following generation can fix up our mishaps and lack of foresight. Common, you can’t be serious dude!!
Troy says ‘ dude’
Troy can’t be taken seriously
We’ll be discussing another Coalition Opposition leader……..?
You might be talking to yourself.
Troy,whatever ones opinion is of the carbon tax,it should have been taken to an election.It will effect the people,let the people decide.Gillards pre-election promise not to have a carbon tax will define her for the rest of her life. Like with multiculturlism,,its another Labor experiment forced on the populatian without our consent. What a disgrace. Last time I checked,we were still a democracy.
Gillard has a mandate, and that is to protect Australians both socially and financially here and now, and for the future. I would be worried if this policy had little support from science and economic bodies, but it is the contrary. How many times have politians reneged on promises over our life times. Common and be real. If it has a lot of credibility with neuteral experts, surely it is good. The carbon tax from all angles pales into insignificance incomparison to the 10% GST imposition on just about everything we purchase. The purchase of 1 television attracts a average of $200 in tax. Who the hell introduced this and promised that they wouldn’t.