This is why that ignorant halfwit Tony Abbott must never become PM.

[Guest]

I do not think that little Australia can effect world climate change, No.
I am however, all for reducing CO2 emissions as well as other pollutants. Just not through a TAX.

If the notion is so stupid, why are you advocating the hand over of cash to Julia and Wayne..?

I'm not, for the second time. I'm advocating a price on carbon. Would you support one if the Libs had brought it in?

Chook.

[Guest]

When it comes to the economic effect of the carbon tax on Australia, I look to Ross Greenwood rather than Ross Garnaut who was responsible for the near destruction...hell, it has been destroyed...of the fabric and textiles industry back in the mid-80s when he told Hawke and Keating to deregulate it.

Ross Greenwood stated that the Carbox tax is being touted to balance the books, nothing more.

Even if you believe that human beings have any measurable effect on this planet then maybe you should try and embrace a rational thought and accept that Australia and it's contributions are about 1/1000th of China and India.

The people out there that want to give their money to the government, they have ways and means without bringing in a tax that the rational and sane people do not want to pay to help this spendthrift government cover their backsides.

Business is looking for someone to set a base price for carbon. Once that happens the market will set the price. Greenwood is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't alter the fact business want this as they are looking long term.

Chook.

[Guest]

A tax will never control the world's temperature. If yo believe it will, please detail by how many degrees.

I've tried and tried and tried to explain to you melon that reducing CO2, which every leading climate scientist has stated is causing the globe to warm will reduce that warming. I agree Australia's contribution to that warming is negligable, but the fact is we contribute none the less and therefore we need to do our bit by reducing our CO2 emissions which the carbon tax will accomplish.

Now if you can't understand that than I'm sorry I can't exlpain it any simpler.

Chook.

[Guest]

I think we should do it only if every other country does it otherwise it's an absolute waste of time, money, effort,anguish,debate and everything else you can think of.

[Guest]

I think we should do it only if every other country does it otherwise it's an absolutewaste of time, money, effort,anguish,debate and everything else you can think of.

We're not gonna be world leaders here. No one will follow.

[Guest]

I think we should do it only if every other country does it otherwise it's an absolutewaste of time, money, effort,anguish,debate and everything else you can think of.

We're not gonna be world leaders here. No one will follow.

Other countries already have a price on carbon.

Did we wait for other countries to introduce a GST = No.
Did we wait for other countries to introduce trade tarriffs = No.
Did we wait for other countries to introduce other taxes = No.

Chook.

[Guest]

Which other countries?

[Guest]

Which other countries?

Countries in the EU have a carbon price, some even have an ETS. Some American states also have a voluntary ETS.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226014388420

We are not alone in putting a price on carbon, nor are we "leading the world" or doing it before everyone else as the Libs and their mouth pieces will tell you. In fact we are lagging behind the rest of the world.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/en...018-16qvm.html

Chook.

[Guest]

Business is looking for someone to set a base price for carbon. Once that happens the market will set the price. Greenwood is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't alter the fact business want this as they are looking long term.

Chook.

Chook, some businesses are looking for a price on carbon so they can make an absolute crapload of money from selling carbon credits. That's why when Muammar Gillard talks about investments being affected, that means Goldman Sachs and KPMG will lose the chance to invest in permits to buy and sell what is essentially plant food.

Because, even those who only ever did the very basic science at primary school know that Carbon Dioxide, the fusing of a carbon molecule and two oxygen molecules, is used by plants in photosynthesis. You see, plants absorb carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product.

So, logic dictates even if you believe that human beings are responsible for the overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, iinstead of those greedy sons of bitches waiting to reap the rewards of the average householder's being taxed into poverty for no reason, why don't they invest in an arboreal solution to the problem.

You know, planting trees.

It's just a thought.

[Guest]

Chook, some businesses are looking for a price on carbon so they can make an absolute crapload of money from selling carbon credits. That's why when Muammar Gillard talks about investments being affected, that means Goldman Sachs and KPMG will lose the chance to invest in permits to buy and sell what is essentially plant food.

Because, even those who only ever did the very basic science at primary school know that Carbon Dioxide, the fusing of a carbon molecule and two oxygen molecules, is used by plants in photosynthesis. You see, plants absorb carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product.

So, logic dictates even if you believe that human beings are responsible for the overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, iinstead of those greedy sons of bitches waiting to reap the rewards of the average householder's being taxed into poverty for no reason, why don't they invest in an arboreal solution to the problem.

You know, planting trees.

It's just a thought.

And who do you think will pay for the planting of those trees Tony? Business or households or perhaps the tooth fairy?

Anyway take that thought and, I dunno, expand it to renewable technologies, wind, solar, geothermic. Investment in these technologies is needed in the short and long term. The carbon tax will accomplish that too Tony by making those technologies far more attractive to invest in and in the end the market will determine the price of carbon.

Carbon is being priced now in other countries. How long would like Australia to wait before we do put a price on carbon? Because we will, eventually, it's only a matter of time. Perhaps you'd like us to wait until our economy can't afford it then do it eh? Or I know, let's wait till unemployment starts to rise then do it. Silly me, we should wait till the mining boom is over then do it, that would be the best time wouldn't it Tony?

But maybe you're right, maybe we should just jam our heads up our arses and ignore the inevitable. Ignorance is after all a political agenda of some.

Chook.

[stephenj]

when do we do it then ? 2nd, 123th? someone has to make the first step?

[Guest]

And who do you think will pay for the planting of those trees Tony? Business or households or perhaps the tooth fairy?

Anyway take that thought and, I dunno, expand it to renewable technologies, wind, solar, geothermic. Investment in these technologies is needed in the short and long term. The carbon tax will accomplish that too Tony by making those technologies far more attractive to invest in and in the end the market will determine the price of carbon.

Carbon is being priced now in other countries. How long would like Australia to wait before we do put a price on carbon? Because we will, eventually, it's only a matter of time. Perhaps you'd like us to wait until our economy can't afford it then do it eh? Or I know, let's wait till unemployment starts to rise then do it. Silly me, we should wait till the mining boom is over then do it, that would be the best time wouldn't it Tony?

But maybe you're right, maybe we should just jam our heads up our arses and ignore the inevitable. Ignorance is after all a political agenda of some.

Chook.

Chook, we have one thing in common, we both support the Roosters. We will never, ever agree on this so I shall back out of this debate, for no other reason that it's pointless to keep arguing with you.

[Guest]

Countries in the EU have a carbon price, some even have an ETS. Some American states also have a voluntary ETS.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226014388420

We are not alone in putting a price on carbon, nor are we "leading the world" or doing it before everyone else as the Libs and their mouth pieces will tell you. In fact we are lagging behind the rest of the world.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/en...018-16qvm.html

Chook.

The rest of the world ay try about 30 other countries. Considering the approx 200 countries in the world you can only accurately say we are lagging behind 15% of other countries in implementing an ets or carbon dioxide tax/price.

One of the states in America, New Hampshire is going to abolish the ETS.

[Guest]

And who do you think will pay for the planting of those trees Tony? Business or households or perhaps the tooth fairy?

Anyway take that thought and, I dunno, expand it to renewable technologies, wind, solar, geothermic. Investment in these technologies is needed in the short and long term. The carbon tax will accomplish that too Tony by making those technologies far more attractive to invest in and in the end the market will determine the price of carbon.

Carbon is being priced now in other countries. How long would like Australia to wait before we do put a price on carbon? Because we will, eventually, it's only a matter of time. Perhaps you'd like us to wait until our economy can't afford it then do it eh? Or I know, let's wait till unemployment starts to rise then do it. Silly me, we should wait till the mining boom is over then do it, that would be the best time wouldn't it Tony?

But maybe you're right, maybe we should just jam our heads up our arses and ignore the inevitable. Ignorance is after all a political agenda of some.

Chook.

This is about green jobs read it and weep

There was a similar report in Spain that showed 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job created. Spain I have heard has about 20% unemployment and about 40% youth unemployment.

The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy
in Scotland and the UK
March 2011

Executive Summary
Verso Economics

Richard Marsh & Tom Miers Executive Summary

I. This report examines the costs and benefits of government policy to support the
renewable energy industry in Scotland and the UK. The Scottish Government in
particular is promoting the renewables sector as an economic opportunity, and the
purpose of this report is to assess whether this is justified. The report therefore does
not investigate measures designed to reduce carbon emissions directly, nor does it
consider the merits of renewable technology as part of the attempts to slow climate
change.

II. The report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable
energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland there is no net benefit from government
support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs.

III. The lower level of job displacement in Scotland is because of the greater
concentration of renewable energy generation in Scotland. This means that
electricity consumers and UK taxpayers subsidised the Scottish industry by c
£330m in 2009/10 over and above subsidies paid for by Scottish taxpayers and
consumers. To the extent that the Scottish industry is a success, it is reliant on the
wider UK policy making framework, in particular the Renewables Obligation
Certificate (ROC) scheme.

IV. The main policy tool used to promote renewable energy generation is the
Renewables Obligation, which effectively raises the market price paid for electricity
from renewable sources. This scheme cost electricity consumers £1.1bn in the UK
and around £100m in Scotland in 2009/10. The UK government plans similar
schemes to promote renewable heat and renewable fuels
.
V. In addition, both the UK and Scottish Governments have introduced a wide range of
grants and subsidies for the renewables industry. These are estimated at £188m UK
wide and an additional £22m in Scotland in 2009/10. Further, an exemption from the
Climate Change Levy for renewable generation costs HMRC £77m UK wide and
£25m in Scotland in lost tax revenue.

VI. The renewable energy sector imposes other indirect costs on the economy, mainly
from its impact on the local environment and landscape. While there has been some
research into aspects of this, there is no conclusive data, so these costs are not
included in the calculations used in this report. In total, measurable policies to
promote renewable energy cost £1.4bn UK wide and £168m in Scotland in 2009/10. 2

VII. A number of studies have attempted to measure the wider impacts of such policies.
Research in Spain, Germany and by the EU suggests that net employment effects
are negative with the likely opportunity cost, or costs associated with higher energy
prices, outstripping the creation of green jobs. Many of these studies cite possible
localised benefits during the construction phase of renewable energy infrastructure
and the potential for longer term benefits if export markets can be established.

VIII. This report uses the Scottish Government’s own macroeconomic model for Scotland
to assess the impact of identified costs on jobs. A similar model was used by the
Scottish Government to measure the opportunity cost of the cut in VAT implemented
in 2008-09. Based on this, policy to promote renewable energy in the UK has an
opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009/10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland.

IX. The economic benefits that derive from the renewable energy sector are hard to
assess because the industry is difficult to measure as a clearly-defined sector.
However, employment figures cited by those promoting renewable energy are often
greatly exaggerated, exceeding official employment figures covering the whole of the
energy sector.

X. Extrapolating from wider energy industry data, and comparing this to estimates from
government and industry bodies, total direct employment in renewable energy
generation can be estimated at 2,700 in the UK and 1,100 in Scotland in 2009/10.


XI. In conclusion, policy to promote the renewable electricity sector in both Scotland and
the UK is economically damaging. Government should not see this as an economic
opportunity, therefore, but should focus debate instead on whether these costs, and
the damage done to the environment, are worth the candle in terms of climate change
mitigation.

XII. In Scotland, it should be recognised that the industry is reliant on UK wide support.
Scottish policy making in isolation would be much more expensive. The Scottish
Government, like its counterparts in the rest of the UK, should establish much more
accurate figures on the extent of the industry to engender a more rational debate on
the subject
__________________

http://www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf

[Pass the Ball]

I'm not, for the second time. I'm advocating a price on carbon. Would you support one if the Libs had brought it in?

Chook.

No, I would not. It is not about Labour v Liberal.

The only thing Gillard has going for her, is that Abbott is an even bigger idiot than she is...

Let's face it, if you are successful, you probably are not going to enter into politics are you?