Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[Hallo Alfie]

For someone who claims to be full of information, you know how to play dumb whenever it suits you, then you claim there is no evidence. I read the news sites, I keep up with what they say about black saturday, I know what the recommendations of the royal commission were. Google it ffs. ger off your ** for a change when it doesn't suit you. I predict you will now report this post, get it sent to AAH, and claim there is no evidence when there is a whole royal commissions worth.

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

 

[Akhenaten]

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

Are you claiming that you read the final report of the Royal Commission and couldn't find any evidence of the part played by power lines in the Black Saturday fires? That you couldn't find any evidence of the Commission's recommendations to upgrade the electricity supply infrastructure?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Are you claiming that you read the final report of the Royal Commission and couldn't find any evidence of the part played by power lines in the Black Saturday fires? That you couldn't find any evidence of the Commission's recommendations to upgrade the electricity supply infrastructure?

Nope.

 

[Akhenaten]

Nope.

Then what do the highlighted words in this post mean?

As usual you have none. I don't disbelieve your claims .... yet. But a lack of evidence is telling indeed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They mean exactly what they say.

 

[Akhenaten]

They mean exactly what they say.

Exactly what they say is that there's a lack of evidence that the Black Saturday fires have led to an increase in spending on electricity supply infrastructure - a claim which is demonstrably without merit - and that this lack of evidence - a lack which doesn't exist - is telling you something.

Your argument appears somewhat confused.

It seems that what you really wanted to say is that the evidence doesn't count because AUP didn't post it here for you and instead suggested that you do your own research.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I have no argument here - yet again you get things wrong. I am simply asking someone to produce evidence to support their claims, rather than cite from what I imagine are biased memories.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

. . . and claim there is no evidence when there is a whole royal commission's worth.

You nailed it, AUP.

Have a cookie.

​

 

[uvar]

I understand that the asylum seekers legislation is the focus of today, but it's still surprising how little the carbon tax has been mentioned in parliament. Maybe Abbott's just holding the best until last?

 

[Damien Evans]

Evidence please.



Rubbish. The reasons that the fires were "so bad" were a combination of things ranging from bad luck, poor management by councils (no burning off due to stupid green schemes), dense suburban living in country locations among others.

You cannot possibly be serious. How can you not have heard of the Kilmore East fire on Black Saturday, which was started by downed SP AusNet power lines? Have you been hiding under a rock for 4 years?

 

[Damien Evans]

I have no argument here - yet again you get things wrong. I am simply asking someone to produce evidence to support their claims, rather than cite from what I imagine are biased memories.

Read. It's not that hard.

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Indeed it is not hard. Perhaps others should read it too and obtain a fuller grasp on the issue. However, the arguments some have been putting up now make me think we are totally at cross purposes.

I asked for evidence to this statement from AUP. I am relating to the first part, others seem to be on the second.

"One partial reason for the massive hike in infrastructure costs was the need to make the country power lines safer, since they were responsible for the most deadly fire on Black Saturday."

I would like to see where AUP gets his info on the relationship between the "massive hike" in costs and the lines. My understanding is that the power companies had some insurance against these types of events (i.e. fires). I would also be interested to see the extent of the "partial" comment.

I have no argument against the second part of the sentence.

Has AUP some evidence on this or is he guessing?

Like I said earlier, I do not disbelieve him, it simply does not fit with my understanding.

 

[bit_pattern]

Alan Kohler on why Abbott's 'blood pledge' won't be carried out:

Against that, the economy is travelling very well indeed and the Coalition has a very big looming problem funding handouts without the taxes (carbon tax and mining tax) that go with them. The hole is said to be $70 billion, which will have to come from spending cuts or other taxes.

Gillard and Wayne Swan believe that if they neutralise boats and company tax as issues, then the $70 billion hole will sink Tony Abbott.

Also, they hope the carbon tax will be less of an issue because a growing number of emitting companies are already making a profit out of it. That’s because the compensation for trade-exposed firms is fixed for five years based on old industry averages; many are now emitting much less greenhouse gas and are ahead on the deal. They will squawk if Abbott repeals it.

What’s more, Abbott won’t be able to repeal it before 2015 because of the need for another election to do it, by which time companies may be buying cheap European permits.

 

[Wildy]

Of course Abbott could run on a platform of getting rid of the carbon tax and then claiming that getting rid of it is a "non-core promise".

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alan Kohler on why Abbott's 'blood pledge' won't be carried out:

#1 Against that, the economy is travelling very well indeed and the Coalition has a very big looming problem funding handouts without the taxes (carbon tax and mining tax) that go with them. The hole is said to be $70 billion, which will have to come from spending cuts or other taxes.

#2 Also, they hope the carbon tax will be less of an issue because a growing number of emitting companies are already making a profit out of it. That’s because the compensation for trade-exposed firms is fixed for five years based on old industry averages; many are now emitting much less greenhouse gas and are ahead on the deal. They will squawk if Abbott repeals it.

#3 What’s more, Abbott won’t be able to repeal it before 2015 because of the need for another election to do it, by which time companies may be buying cheap European permits.

#1 The handouts wont be needed. ie compensation will not be required if the tax is not there.
#2 They already know Abbott will be repealing it. They might squawk, but not as much as the implementation of Gillard's. Aldo the word "hope" is a bit wishy washy.
#3 Why won't he repeal it before 2015?. Assuming Labor won't support him through the upper house, Abbott has already touted the possibility a double dissolution to do just that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Of course Abbott could run on a platform of getting rid of the carbon tax and then claiming that getting rid of it is a "non-core promise".

The Yabbie has certainly set an impressive (probably unbeatable) low water mark for those that follow, hasn't she?

 

[a_unique_person]

#1 The handouts wont be needed. ie compensation will not be required if the tax is not there.
#2 They already know Abbott will be repealing it. They might squawk, but not as much as the implementation of Gillard's. Aldo the word "hope" is a bit wishy washy.
#3 Why won't he repeal it before 2015?. Assuming Labor won't support him through the upper house, Abbott has already touted the possibility a double dissolution to do just that.

Abbott has promised to keep the tax cuts. No one has any idea how he will finance it, least of all Abbott himself. He just promises anything, then leaves the details to others.
Industry accepts that Australia has to do it's bit, the realists who go with accepted, mainstream science, anyway.
A double dissolution? That will generate a huge backlash. Most Australians are rapidly waking up to the fact that all Abbott's spittle blasting fear mongering is just empty lies designed to get their vote.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Abbott has promised to keep the tax cuts.

The term was handouts, not tax cuts. There is a difference between them.

Industry accepts that Australia has to do it's bit, the realists who go with accepted, mainstream science, anyway.

Even if true, none of this even remotely negates what I said.

A double dissolution? That will generate a huge backlash.

I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.

Most Australians are rapidly waking have woken up to the fact that all Abbott's Gillard's spittle blasting fear mongering is just empty lies designed to get their vote.

ftfy

 

[wombatwal]

I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.



ftfy

I agree, Rudd had no guts, he should have called Stalin on his opposition to the ETS, he should have called an election. He would have beaten Stalin, and there would have been an ETS.
If the Stalinist party gets in, in 2013 and cannot negate the carbon tax, Stalin will hope to win a double dissolution, but don't be too confident of that. Hopefully by the time he can call a double dissolution enough punters would have woken up to Stalin.

 

[a_unique_person]

The term was handouts, not tax cuts. There is a difference between them.



Even if true, none of this even remotely negates what I said.



I doubt it. If Rudd had had the guts to call one he would not be where he is. Abbott has said that if Labor will not support the repealing of the tax he will call a double dissolution and get control of the senate. This would be a sensible move and the Labor and its senators would be idiots not the oblige him and the mandate given him by the electorate.



ftfy

you will have to show me all the damage being done by the carbon price. I can't see it anywhere. Far more price rises have been caused by climate related extreme events.