Jul 7, 2011

Carbon Tax Mark 3


Millions will be Worse Off.

Cartoon: by Zeg


By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

Australia's Minister for Controlling the Climate, King Combet, has promised that millions of households will be better off under Carbon Tax Mark 3. Who is he trying to fool?

There is only one tax on the people and that is total government spending. The carbon tax will increase that greatly. And the more complex the system, with more exemptions, more rebates, more electoral bribes and more cash handouts, the more will be wasted on government administration. We will pay more and get less value back.

Every tax levied by the government gets spread around until it rests with the people at the bottom of the pile. Consumers will see increased costs for electricity food and transport, retirees will see lower dividends, job seekers will see contraction of real jobs, other tax receipts will fall thus reducing government income, and too many of us will spend more time trying to join the ranks of the tax avoiders and rorters.

Can we believe that the same incompetents who delivered pink batts, cash-for-clunkers, schools renewals, a computer for every child and the Queensland Health Payroll will suddenly be able to handle the complexities and con-men in yet another money-churning vote-buying scheme?

None of this will have any effect whatsoever on climate, so why crucify ourselves further?

The world is moving on from the global warming scam. It's Time for Australia to move on.

Australian Tour by Lord Christopher Monckton

A well organised group who support the Global Warming Swindle and the Carbon Tax Grab have put pressure on the venues that agreed to host the Monckton Functions. Surprisingly the Broncos League Club in Brisbane has reneged on an agreed function. Already our supporters have let the Broncos know what they think of this breach of contract. Keep it up.

But the function will go ahead at:
Bardon Conference Centre
390 Simpsons Rd
Bardon QLD 4065
Phone: +61 7 3217 5333
Wednesday 13th July 2011. Doors open 6pm for 7pm start. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS FUNCTION.

There is parking at the venue for about 200 cars. Best public transport would be via taxi.
For Monckton tickets and bookings:

To view all dates and times for Lord Monckton's Tour please go here:

Which Carbon Tax? None of the Above.

It seems that everyone except Professor Garnaut knows that the PM Gillard's "Price on Carbon" is a "Tax on Carbon Dioxide". The more she denies this fact, the less we trust anything she says.

Her "carbon tax" is so unpopular that she is now proposing its early replacement by Emissions Trading Scheme Mark 2.

There are two essential elements to an emissions trading scheme.

First, the tonnage of carbon dioxide produced will be rationed by law – so it is back to the old war-time ration cards. No one is allowed to produce harmless carbon dioxide without having a ration card. (Will it apply to Kevin Rudd's jet, or to foreign tourists coming to visit the Barrier Reef?)

But unlike the old ration cards which were provided free, these carbon ration permits will be sold by the government. They act exactly like a tax on production – just another underhand tax on carbon dioxide.

These permits to emit hot air can be traded. They will become profitable playthings for bankers and speculators. Europe has shown that fraudsters flourish and permit prices vary wildly in such markets in make-believe goods.

Imagine producers seeking investment certainty in an Emissions Trading Casino.

A simple fixed tax is far better than a complex variable tax.

But the best Carbon Tax result is for Parliament to vote "None of the Above".

Background Comments:

Speculators Paradise:
"Under the European ETS, the price of permits tripled in the first six months of the scheme then collapsed by half in 2006 before declining to zero at one point in 2007. Recently, the permit price has fallen by 20 per cent in just a week, including a fall of 11 per cent on just one day. Such volatility fatally undermines the argument that an ETS will provide “certainty” for emitters." (Source:)

Policies for Poverty - nothing has changed:

7 comments:

  1. I try not to let politics cloud my judgement on science. Both sides of the global warming debate use the issue as a club to advance their side in a political war. Just because the Commies are screaming for Socialism because of carbon does not mean the science does not exist.

    Simple logic. If you take billions on tons of stored carbon products out of the ground and shoot them into the atmosphere there must be some level of impact on the environment. Just look at smog and the impact on public health.

    This is not "magic" pretend gas that just vanishes.

    Check out the der Spiegel story link. Global warming is happening in Greenland. Farmers are able to grow crops they would never have been able to before.

    LINK:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Simple logic, if you take..."

    That is the scientific reason that we are supposed to now bankrupt ourselves and subject future generations to abject poverty?

    Anthropogenic Global Warming, MMGW, Climate Change, Climate change Disruption or whatever you alarmists want to call it is now the reason for Global Cooling caused by China's high carbon emissions.
    FFS a contortionist couldn't assume the numbers of different positions performed by "onboard scientists".

    ReplyDelete
  3. **** whatever you alarmists want to call it ****

    I am not an alarmist, but God did give me a brain and told me to use it.

    If you pour acid into a lake every day at some point fish will die. No more. No less. The science is neither Socialist, Royalist or Republican. It is simply science.

    But rational thought is dead. Everyone wants to score points for their "team".

    Gasses released by man will have an impact. That is science. What type of impact and how much is the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greenland was farmed by Vikings during the Medieval Warm Period, which depending on who you listen to, lasted about 3-400 years. Temperatures there were warmer than today.

    What troubles me is that there have been a number of scandals which seem to stem mainly from the 'reputable' side of the debate, and serious attempts have been made to shut down the skeptical side. This is authoritarian stuff, not genuine science.

    My opinion is that governments have a long track record for being total screwups on everything they touch, and I don't believe they will be any better on climate. As usual their solution involves new taxes.

    Many of the 'environmentally responsible' businessmen making calls for alternative energy are looking to get their snouts in the trough. The ABC just featured a company pioneering 'hot rocks' technology, with the theme of more government money to them. Branson has just claimed that the time is right to invest in alternative power. The reason for this is that it is heavily subsidised.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regardless of any science, or lack thereof, giving even more of our tax money to the government will do absolutely nothing but...well, give the government more money.

    Government cannot and will not "solve" any problem, just "manage" it in perpetuity via an ever larger, costlier and more powerful bureaucracy. In the end, government inevitably makes things worse all around, especially for us peasants, through ineptness, greed and unintended consequences.

    Take, for instance, the U.S. Department of Energy, created by Jimmy Carter in 1977. Among other things, its was going to
    "lessen our dependance on foreign oil". Today, this agency has morphed into a monstrosity that runs an annual budget in excess of $24 billion, employs 16,000 government drones and hacks, and approximately 100,000 contracted employees. They've been working hard at their mission for better than three decades now. And we're just as dependent on foreign oil as we ever were.

    As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "Giving money and power to Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yep, essentially our LDP policy on climate change is that the government should do nothing as they are more likely to stuff it up than improve things.

    I have always felt that PJ made a poor analogy there, as teenage boys with whiskey and car keys are less likely to do damage than a Congress with money and power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe P.J. was talking about giving a Kennedy whiskey, car keys and a lifetime Senate seat. Now that was a recipe for disaster.

    ReplyDelete