"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan
Now with my very own Tech2....YAY.
Very curious... why have none of you Abbot sycophants objected to Campbell Newman breaking a firm election promise and now deciding to allow Uranium mining in QLD? Oh wait I know.. he isn't a labor politician..
Or maybe its because circumstances have changed? hmmm no that couldn't possibly be it, a promise is a promise...
OMG he must have LIED...
Gillard and her "circumstances changed" defence was only trotted out because she needed the greens to form government - ie for political purposes only. From what I understand Newman found the accounts was disastrously worse than forecast by the then Labor government in QLD and thus drastic action needed to be taken.
Gillard: saving her own skin
Newman: cleaning up ALP mess.
As for the broader issue of Uranium mining - it's carried out with safety else where in Aus. I don't see why QLD shouldn't also try to make something from it.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The tax, levied on 30% of the "super profits" from the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia, is proposed to be introduced from 1 July 2012. A company will only have to pay the tax when its annual profits reach $75 million, a measure designed so as not to burden small business."
Their profits haven't reached the level needed yet.
Ah, that makes sense.
So in that case, why was Labor banking on 2 billions from this tax?
Obviously this was not an accurate calculation. And moreso, why did they spend money that was so uncertain?
"I would do anything to get that job, Tony, the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse — but I’d have to give serious thought to it." - Tony Abbot to Tony Windsor.
That's concerning. These people are running the country and keep finding themselve in a situation where they have less money than they budgetted.
Granted I only managed a houe budget but I am yet to ever find myself in a similar situation. It's called being realistic.
I don't give a crap about Uranium mining one way or another. There is a point here that those with blinkers are missing...
Newman changed his mind because the feds decided to sell Uranium to India. He can see a buck in it. Newman has broken countless promises which DIRECTLY affect householders, such as freezing water, rego, electricity, rates. NONE of these have been frozen, its a litany of broken promises. A lot of them are necessary, no argument here.. although are you saying he wasn't aware QLD was in trouble?.. because he clearly was even when he was making those promises. Blind Freddy could see that. Still, lets take his promises on face value, and assume he genuinely believed he could follow through with them...
Gillard changed her mind on the Carbon Tax because the greens wouldn't have helped her gain government without doing so. Abbot also agreed (to the independents) to a bunch of things he wouldn't have normally in an effort to gain government, you can put money on that. Of course, he didn't gain government so you won't get to hear about which promises he was willing to break.
Howard presided over the countries finances at a time when it was virtually impossible to screw it up. Every major economy in the world was going gangbusters, every trading partner we have were doing great. He didn't do anything special financially, he just rode the money wave that rolled around the world. He also invented the term 'core promises and non-core promises' to somehow convince us he hadn't told any lies...
Gillard has done many things people don't like, in an effort to balance the budget. Are you blaming the GLOBAL downturn on the labor government?? Just be thankful you don't live in Greece or any of the many other countries that are doing it seriously tough at the moment.
Just one final small point, this time on the Baby Bribe, instituted by the Howard government. If you have a second child, the bribe is now going to be smaller. Abbot objects to this, because 'it hurts families'. Instead, he wants to remove the payments given to assist people with school costs.
So, if you only have one kid, you can choose not to have the next one. If a couple grand influences your decision on whether or not to have a kid, you certainly should be keeping it firmly zipped away. You clearly aren't likely to be a decent parent anyway if that's an influence.
If you have 3 kids at school already, which you may (? seems unlikely to me ?) have chosen to have because of the baby bribe, can you now (if ongoing schoolkids support is removed as Abbot advocates) choose to not send them to school because you cant afford to?
Which one hurts families more.. reducing the baby bribe or removing the ongoing school support? He is going in to bat for families? Gimme a break...
Last edited by DAKSTER; 26-10-2012 at 01:55 PM.
On the subject of energy bills, examine the figures. This year, the energy costs of an average household in QLD rose about 13%. Last year, they rose about 21%. The year before that, they rose about 19%. So if the 13% rise this year was directly attributable to the Carbon Tax, what caused the rise last year? And the year before that.. and the year before that.. and the year before that...
The Carbon Tax has become the most heavily publicised non-event in history.
From what I understand of QLD - if it were a company the directors (AKA previous government) would be all facing jail for trading insolvent. NSW is/was not far behind.
The next biggest sources of carbon emissions are those from burned petrol and diesel, both of which are exempted - so why bother?
Last edited by Reaper; 26-10-2012 at 03:13 PM.
I'm just sick of hearing about the huge impact this waste of time is having. Its having no impact at all. Much ado about nothing.
A tax that has no effect on anything is not a tax that is worth having at all. It just gives people something to blame with no actual reason.. just ask the now unemployed Brumbies manager that tried.
It was a bad move politically, motivated and forced upon us by the greens with their heads in the clouds. I bet Gillard rues the day she first heard the words 'Carbon Tax'.
I beg to differ with regard to "no effect on anything". For Australian manufacturing it's nothing more than another nail in the coffin. The federal government should be doing whatever it can to help reduce the labour, OH&S and environmental cost advantages of China and the like, not further reinforce their competitive advantage by increasing our local taxation as well. Just to spell it out, I do not advocate lowering our standards of OH&S, labour and environmental to their levels. Taxation is one way to at least start re-balancing the ledger.
Since this thread has become a little dead of late - I thought I'd lob this up. I posted this in another thread in july last year regarding our "save the planet" Growth/Energy/Carbon tax. Nobody challenged it and in the last year, I have found zero evidence to question it's validity.
JCCC Federal Election PollsTheir own. Carbon emissions tracks roughly along economic growth (or even slightly higher). We are planning to reduce it by 5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 (7.5 years after it's implementation). This reduction can only come from a few sources that will make a measurable difference on a macro scale.
1. Lower vehicle emissions. The trend for people to downsize their cars is long established yet carbon emissions are still going up. I'd expect this trend to continue but expecting an accelerated reduction in emissions from here is ambitious at best.
2. Replacing the nations coal fired power stations with clean(er) sources base load power. Building a power station is not a quick thing. The planning and construction is a 5 - 10 year proposition with nuclear being upwards of 15. Aside from nuclear, there is no zero or near zero emission technology available to Australia for base load power. There are a few cogen plants on the horizon however these are neither large nor low enough emissions to make anything more than a stone chip dent on a structure the size of several jumbo jets.
3. Power saving technology available to the consumer has made a big leap forward over recent years with the roll out of halogen low watt bulbs and led's using roughly 1/7th the power of the old incandescent bulbs (which were banned under the Howard government but most people seem to forget that). Instant hot water systems and the like are also gradually gaining market share however most of these are maturing and the gains are mostly already realized with only incremental gains into the future.
Industry have been working to economise on power usage for my whole working life (Since the early 90's) and probably earlier. Electricity has always been a big cost for industry that all companies try to save money on. I can't see an extra cost on something that they have already minimised gaining anything here either.
4. Direct action has been ruled out by the Government so we have no gains there either. All in all we have just run out of options.
Thus, with carbon emissions pretty much tied to economic output, the only way to lower Australia's emissions is to not only stop **all** economic growth right now and reverse a decade of strong growth. The GFC did put things on hold but overall the first 2/3 of 2000's were very strong for Australia thanks to Costello guiding the economy thru the Asian Economic meltdown (anybody remember that?) exceptionally well.
There you have it - legislated recession. And you thought Workchoices was bad
i dont understand the challenge but heres my input (or very big lack of)
the whole lower vehicle emissions makes me laugh reap.
"yeah lets go to electric cars"
because obviously electricity is made in your wall by fairies, and not some coal fired generator =P
the replace globes part.
you can still buy incandescents. well i can atleast =P
LEDs are good though. waiting to see those high bays at work fire up. see how they compare.
but with todays building standards of a certain lumens per square meter your basically forced into "energy savers"
kinda works. but they dont produce enough light. and youll install more anyway.
tax will do nothing.
unless it goes directly into planting of trees.
trees suck up co2 (you know the bad stuff)
and give out oxygen (or the good stuff)
and can eventually be made into some sweet furniture and/or burnt and used as a "renewable" (slow to produce but still) energy source.
might sound stupid. but it seems to work in my head? =P
how about we make the pedals out of sticky rubber and the shoes with steel spikes. at least my shins would like thatOriginally Posted by ari666
I'm just getting LED's installed in my whole house at the moment and my mate doing the install said they use about 1/8th the power or something.
But We're replacing 10 old, ugly, crappy light fittings with 25 LED's so while there's still a net energy saving its not nearly as high as you first think.
But I must admit high power bills were a big deciding factor in what lights I went with, as well as the appliances I purchased. But this would be the same with or without the Carbon tax. As Dakster said, energy prices rose enough before the CT came in so IMO the Carbon tax is a bit pointless in regard to influencing consumer purchasing
Sadly if you pay attention to what the scientists that are in a position to know are telling us about climate change it looks as if we're heading towards something like what Paul Gilding has described as "The Great Disruption".
Quoting from him here: The Great Disruption is here – Opinion – ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
More here: “The Great Disruption” - Paul Gilding - Independent writer & advisor on sustainability.We're going to have to transform our economy very rapidly, including our energy, transport and agricultural systems. This transition - to a zero net CO2 economy - will soon be underway and the business and economic opportunities for those who are ready (and risks to those who aren't) are hard to overstate.
That's why China is getting ready to win this race, with significantly more impressive programs to capture the opportunity than most Western countries. They understand that in the new world that is unfolding, being a 'solar power' will define geopolitical strength. Maybe the United States will start late, but strongly, surging out of Silicon Valley with a technology boom ready to disrupt and reinvigorate the world again. Time will tell - and probably sooner than you think.
There's much more to this than technology, though, with some cultural and political challenges ahead as well. In a growth-constrained world, our current central economic policy of 'keep calm and carry on shopping' is looking increasingly wrongheaded. It's certainly insufficient for continued human development.
I think this puts it as well or better than anything I can write:The crisis represents a rare chance to replace our addiction to growth with an ethic of sustainability, and it’s already happening. It’s also an unmatched business opportunity: Old industries will collapse while new companies will literally reshape our economy. In the aftermath of the Great Disruption, we will measure “growth” in a new way. It will mean not quantity of stuff but quality and happiness of life. Yes, there is life after shopping.
Make Believe | The Great Disruption: book review & personal action planI couldn’t write this blog without some commentary on what I believe Paul’s thesis means for activists and policy-makers pushing for pricing pollution right now. Some might argue his claim that the world will not act until 2018 is further cause for delaying action here: why should we, in Australia for instance, “damage our economy” when the world’s response will not gear up for several more years? In fact, of course, the opposite is true. Australia’s economy and society will inevitably experience substantial disasters, job losses and security and migration challenges – we will have to act – and the sooner we start the climb down from our world-leading heights of carbon emissions, the less distance we’ll have to fall, and the softer our landing will be. We’ll be better positioned – and more competitive – than those who did not act when the evidence was clear. If it’s about survival of the fittest, surely it’s attractive to be in the best possible shape! The fact that this fairly straight forward (and far from traditionally leftist) notion is so poorly understood or accepted by the public reflects the paucity of our political leadership, the abrogation of responsibility by our media and the clear failure of our education system. Our failure to act on climate is not just a failure of our market system, but of our societal system.
Science is already discussing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change within decades, not centuries. Its likely the consequences of negative actions we have already taken are still to manifest themselves, and also likely that these catastrophic events are already unavoidable. We will need to prepare for what is already likely to come.
If we want to survive as a species, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the future, now.
I'm not going to continue on this one, we have already been warned about discussing climate science in this thread. But rest assured, climate science will inevitably become a major and relevant part of politics in the future.
Start rolling out low/no emissions power generation, present a case that we need to raise ??? dollars to pay for it and then yes, I and most others opposing this "tax" (wealth redistribution scheme really) would most likely offer strong support.
What we have right now is nothing more than an idealistic pipe dream on the government's part.
It is likely, in the short term at least, building the new infrastructure required will be stimulatory in economic terms.
On the subject of base load requirements.. this will become unnecessary in the future.
The trend is towards onsite power generation/extraction. Mass power generation will pass into history eventually, as smaller, less infrastructure dependent methods of power supply such as solar systems become the way of the future.
On this subject, very disappointed Julia. Make a carbon tax then exempt those it should be aimed at. Then cut the solar power rebates dramatically. It sure seems like the wrong direction to me.