MANY Australians remain confused about the carbon tax’s purpose and impact. This simple guide should answer all of your questions and leave everybody in a state of enlightened carbon clarity.

Q: What is carbon?

A: Carbon is a solid non-metallic chemical element. It has nothing at all to do with the carbon tax, carbon pollution or carbon emissions, all of which refer to carbon dioxide.

Q: What is carbon dioxide?

A: Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas emitted in human breath, among other sources. Plants feed on it. In solid form it is known as dry ice.

Q: When will the carbon tax be introduced?

A: Never, according to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who in August 2010 told Australians: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” On the other hand, the carbon tax comes into effect on July 1.

Q: Were we ever given a chance to vote for the carbon tax, as we were given a chance to vote for the GST?

A: No. The carbon tax became law in October 2011 during a parliamentary Labor cuddling ceremony, which overrides any electoral considerations.

Q: Really? The carbon tax caused Labor politicians to actually hug each other?

A: Yes. In fact, the carbon tax is the only known force powerful enough to make Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd kiss. It’s like giving Bacardi Breezers to north shore teenagers.

Q: What is the point of the carbon tax?

A: According to Gillard: “It’s time to deliver the action on climate change we need. To do what is best for Australian families, what is best for future generations, what is best for this country.”

Q: If the carbon tax is such a great thing, what did Labor say about it before the last election?

A: Treasurer Wayne Swan: “Certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that we are moving towards a carbon tax. We reject that.”

Q: Will the carbon tax make any difference at all to global climate trends?

A: It is scientifically impossible for a reduction in Australia’s carbon emissions to make any significant difference to the planet’s climate.

Q: How much carbon does Australia produce?

A: Only about 1.4 per cent of the planet’s human-created carbon dioxide emissions come from Australia, about equal to Indonesia, and one-eighteenth the contribution of China.

Q: But I keep hearing that Australia has an enormous carbon output.

A: Carbon tax enthusiasts like to express Australia’s carbon output in per capita terms, a trick designed to make a very small number appear very large.

Q: If per capita measurement is a method of charting carbon output, which nation is the greatest carbon criminal?

A: According to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, it’s Gibraltar. Terrifying, planet-ruining Gibraltar.

Q: Who will pay the carbon tax?

A: Directly, entities described by the prime minister as “big polludahs”. Indirectly, you.

Q: Is the carbon tax meant to change my buying habits?

A: Yes. As Gillard said in 2011: “There will be price impacts. The whole point of pricing carbon is to say that goods that have got a lot of carbon pollution in them get relatively more expensive.”

Q: Let’s try that again. Is the carbon tax meant to change my buying habits?

A: No. The government has put in place a wide-ranging compensation scheme that is intended to cover cost of living increases for many Australians, so you can just keep on spending like you always did.

Q: What’s the use of it then?

A: Good question.

Q: Who will profit from the carbon tax?

A: Carbon tax bureaucrats, who now have high-paying jobs in a sector of the government that didn’t exist a few years ago.

Q: What kind of indirect costs might a carbon tax involve?

A: NSW government analysis claims average Sydney hospitals will face increased expenses of about $120,000 per year. Schools in Sydney could be paying about $9000 each per year.

Q: How will they pay?

A: With your taxes.

Q: Can the carbon tax ever be removed?

A: According to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, Labor will never support any measures to repeal a tax that they pledged not to introduce. A Coalition government would require control of the Senate in order to remove the carbon tax.

Q: When is the next election?

A: By November 30, 2013.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/elementary-facts-about-tax-founded-in-a-fib/story-e6frezz0-1226398032360

“Q: What is carbon dioxide?

A: Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas emitted in human breath, among other sources. Plants feed on it. In solid form it is known as dry ice.”

Don’t forget this bit that needs to be added, in the quest for non-wanker type facts.

“Carbon dioxide is also emitted in large quantities by the combustion of long buried substances such as coal, oil, and gas that had been removed from the atmosphere some hundreds of millions of years ago. “

>>>Don’t forget this bit that needs to be added, in the quest for non-wanker type facts.<<

You’re a wanker?

Whoever compiled that list of Q&A “facts” certainly shows that tendency and so, by extension, does anyone who takes the time and effort to quote them.

Fact: Trousers are the major cause of death in Australian males. After all, nearly every Australian male who dies has worn trousers at some time in his life.

If only we had of had a Direct Action style solution… that would surely solve all these problems…

>>>Whoever compiled that list of Q&A “facts” certainly shows that tendency and so, by extension, does anyone who takes the time and effort to quote them.<<<

yes, you are a wanker Geoff D!

>>>Fact: Trousers are the major cause of death in Australian males. After all, nearly every Australian male who dies has worn trousers at some time in his life.<<<

Wow; you’re amazing Geoff D.

what size dress is it you wear?

Hmmm … so Tim Blair is a member of the conservative chattering class. Opinions on everything, with no solid basis.

>>>Hmmm … so Tim Blair is a member of the conservative chattering class. Opinions on everything, with no solid basis.<<<

its funny, because everything he said is true

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/10/13/1226165/409368-ipado-nly-gillard-rudd.jpg

“Q: If per capita measurement is a method of charting carbon output, which nation is the greatest carbon criminal?

A: According to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, it’s Gibraltar. Terrifying, planet-ruining Gibraltar.”

I passed this on to Origins of Specious, and he regrets that he could never in his wildest dreams have come up with anything as specious as that.

>>>I passed this on to Origins of Specious, and he regrets that he could never in his wildest dreams have come up with anything as specious as that.<<<

Perhaps people at the Guardian are wankers Geoff D.

You’d know about that

I’m convinced. Here, have a peanut.

>>>Here, have a peanut.<<<

wow; so to you I’m a wanking monkey

gee; you’re good Geoff D

We’re not getting a carbon tax: fact.

The_observer said:

wow; so to you I’m a wanking monkey

I wouldn’t say that. However, it might be good description of Tim Blair. I’ve read a few of his blogs and I feel the need to disinfect my brain.

>>>> We’re not getting a carbon tax: fact.<<<

Certainly not under the government you lead!

> “wow; so to you I’m a wanking monkey” <

>>>>I wouldn’t say that.<<<<

But you did say that Geoff D.

>>>However, it might be good description of Tim Blair. I’ve read a few of his blogs and I feel the need to disinfect my brain.<<<

Perhaps being a bit less intolerant & ideologically driven may help Geoff D

So Observer… your problems with the carbon tax seem to be very politically motivated… did you vote ALP and were then surprised that they ‘back flipped’ or would you prefer the Direct Action policy the Coalition is proposing??

>>>So Observer… your problems with the carbon tax seem to be very politically motivated<<<

No; the tax is politically motivated.

My dislike of it is based on science

>>> did you vote ALP and were then surprised that they ‘back flipped’ or would you prefer the Direct Action policy the Coalition is proposing??<<<

I voted for Kevin 07, I’m embarrassed to say, but I did not vote for Juliar.

>>
Perhaps being a bit less intolerant & ideologically driven may help Geoff D
<<

Yes Geoff, why can’t you just follow the fine example set by The_Observer who wouldn’t dream of posting politically motivated garbage on a science forum or call people wankers (not that there is anything wrong with being a wanker)?

The_observer said:

>>>So Observer… your problems with the carbon tax seem to be very politically motivated<<<

No; the tax is politically motivated.

My dislike of it is based on science

>>> did you vote ALP and were then surprised that they ‘back flipped’ or would you prefer the Direct Action policy the Coalition is proposing??<<<

I voted for Kevin 07, I’m embarrassed to say, but I did not vote for Juliar.

let’s say that you are right and climate change is a load of hokum, surely having an system that aims to transition the economy to a more sustainable fuel source is a good thing… yes??

>>>es Geoff, why can’t you just follow the fine example set by The_Observer who wouldn’t dream of posting politically motivated garbage on a science forum or call people wankers (not that there is anything wrong with being a wanker)?<<<

Great one Rev.

Re-read Geoff D’s posts. He’s the one calling people wankers, not me. He was also offensive enough to suggest I am a monkey.

Of course, you’re so blinded by your biases that you have misses that crucial point.

Also, this is not a science forum. It’s a holiday forum.

The people who voted ALP at the last election were expecting

1. No Carbon tax
2. A Peoples Assembly of 150 random punter to decide what if anything the Government was to do about climate change, that was the policy the ALP took to the electorate.

>>>let’s say that you are right and climate change is a load of hokum, surely having an system that aims to transition the economy to a more sustainable fuel source is a good thing… yes??<<<

That will happen naturally. But it will be eons before we need to transition. So why push it so hard?

>>>2. A Peoples Assembly of 150 random punter to decide what if anything the Government was to do about climate change, that was the policy the ALP took to the electorate.<<<

Cash for clunkers; Oh yeh

Peak Warming Man said:

The people who voted ALP at the last election were expecting

1. No Carbon tax
2. A Peoples Assembly of 150 random punter to decide what if anything the Government was to do about climate change, that was the policy the ALP took to the electorate.

Does this group include you PWM??

Perhaps being a bit less intolerant & ideologically driven may help Geoff D

Pot – kettle – black.

The_observer said:

>>>let’s say that you are right and climate change is a load of hokum, surely having an system that aims to transition the economy to a more sustainable fuel source is a good thing… yes??<<<

That will happen naturally. But it will be eons before we need to transition. So why push it so hard?

What mechanism would naturally force this change?? and eons, really… I mean I’m in the coal game and even I don;t think there are eons worth of fossil fuels available for us to exploit at current rates…

>>>Pot – kettle – black<<

I’m not the person being offensive & calling people “wankers” & suggesting people are monkeys; at least!

The_observer said:

>>>es Geoff, why can’t you just follow the fine example set by The_Observer who wouldn’t dream of posting politically motivated garbage on a science forum or call people wankers (not that there is anything wrong with being a wanker)?<<<

Great one Rev.

Re-read Geoff D’s posts. He’s the one calling people wankers, not me. He was also offensive enough to suggest I am a monkey.

Of course, you’re so blinded by your biases that you have misses that crucial point.

Also, this is not a science forum. It’s a holiday forum.

So who was it who posted:

“yes, you are a wanker Geoff D!”

under your name?

But the crucial point is that to accuse others of being politically motivated after posting the tripe at the top of this thread begins to look a touch like hypocrisy.

Anyway, have a nice holiday, I must return to work.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>>let’s say that you are right and climate change is a load of hokum, surely having an system that aims to transition the economy to a more sustainable fuel source is a good thing… yes??<<<

That will happen naturally. But it will be eons before we need to transition. So why push it so hard?

What mechanism would naturally force this change?? and eons, really… I mean I’m in the coal game and even I don;t think there are eons worth of fossil fuels available for us to exploit at current rates…

So what happens (theoretically) if we wake up tomorrow and it’s all gone, there isn’t a smidge of it anyway, aliens came and stole it or something…

What do we do then?

>>>What mechanism would naturally force this change??<<<

I don’t know?

What mechanism was used to stop the 1st world using candles & start using light bulbs instead?

SqueezeBabe said:

So what happens (theoretically) if we wake up tomorrow and it’s all gone, there isn’t a smidge of it anyway, aliens came and stole it or something…

What do we do then?

well a lot of people would go without power for a start… we’d also have a really big issue making steel…

The_observer said:

>>>What mechanism would naturally force this change??<<<

I don’t know?

What mechanism was used to stop the 1st world using candles & start using light bulbs instead?

well the answer to that question is of the invention of the light bulb? are you suggesting that a technology will be invented that will ‘come to the rescue’ so to speak?

>>>So who was it who posted:

“yes, you are a wanker Geoff D!”<<<

Great one Rev. You are giving an excellent example of your extreme bias here.

Go at me for calling someone a wanker, but ignore what has actually happened.

Post #2
From: Geoff D
ID: 165946
Subject: re: Carbon Tax Facts

Don’t forget this bit that needs to be added, in the quest for non-wanker type facts.

Post #3
From: Geoff D
ID: 165960
Subject: re: Carbon Tax Facts
Whoever compiled that list of Q&A “facts” certainly shows that tendency and so, by extension, does anyone who takes the time and effort to quote them.

So Rev, why do you ignore Geoff D’s insults towards me *?*

>>>well the answer to that question is of the invention of the light bulb? are you suggesting that a technology will be invented that will ‘come to the rescue’ so to speak?<<<

technology is moving forwards & we are able to retrieve gas & oil that were once thought to be Unobtainable ;)))))

The_observer said:

>>>well the answer to that question is of the invention of the light bulb? are you suggesting that a technology will be invented that will ‘come to the rescue’ so to speak?<<<

technology is moving forwards & we are able to retrieve gas & oil that were once thought to be Unobtainable ;)))))

OK… so I’m not sure I understand what you mean… are you actually suggesting that new technology will enable us to produce fossil fuels for eons??

SqueezeBabe said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>>let’s say that you are right and climate change is a load of hokum, surely having an system that aims to transition the economy to a more sustainable fuel source is a good thing… yes??<<<

That will happen naturally. But it will be eons before we need to transition. So why push it so hard?

What mechanism would naturally force this change?? and eons, really… I mean I’m in the coal game and even I don;t think there are eons worth of fossil fuels available for us to exploit at current rates…

So what happens (theoretically) if we wake up tomorrow and it’s all gone, there isn’t a smidge of it anyway, aliens came and stole it or something…

What do we do then?

Our coal and iron ore export industries would instantly cease. In fact, all our export industries would instantly cease, since we rely on sea transport. We would need to construct sailing ships. This would be the least of our problems though. City water supplies would stop. There would be total chaos. No communications. In the short term, we would be forced to cut down the forests to fuel efforts to develop alternative technologies.

My bunker full of canned salmon would suddenly look very appealing. :-)

>>My bunker full of canned salmon would suddenly look very appealing. :-)

I’d be up at my redoubt, smiling man, just like Dr. Hook.

>>>OK… so I’m not sure I understand what you mean… are you actually suggesting that new technology will enable us to produce fossil fuels for eons?<<<

Eons was an exaggeration, but, their is no rush as such, & we now have technology enabling us to retrieve oil & gas that not long ago were thought to be unobtainable, which has futher increased the life expectancy of fossil fuel.

>>>> My bunker full of canned salmon would suddenly look very appealing. :-)
<<<<

forget that morrie.

The aliens would surely go for the salmon first

THERE’D BE NO INTERNET STOP
WE’D NEED TO SEND TELEGRAMS BY MORSE STOP

The_observer said:

>>>OK… so I’m not sure I understand what you mean… are you actually suggesting that new technology will enable us to produce fossil fuels for eons?<<<

Eons was an exaggeration, but, their is no rush as such, & we now have technology enabling us to retrieve oil & gas that not long ago were thought to be unobtainable, which has futher increased the life expectancy of fossil fuel.

well I agree with the first point… an eon is a really long time… but just to be clear on the second point… transitioning our economy to a more sustainable fuel source will will happy naturally because at an unspecified point in time a technology will become available that will increase the amount of fossil fuels that are commercially extractable…

I’m not sure this makes sense?? Again… what mechanism will force this transition and why is it a bad thing to do now?? Is it you belief that the proposed ETS will ruin the economy??

>>> ’m not sure this makes sense?? Again… what mechanism will force this transition<<<

1. when something better comes along

>>>and why is it a bad thing to do now??

read 1.

The_observer said:

>>> ’m not sure this makes sense?? Again… what mechanism will force this transition<<<

1. when something better comes along

>>>and why is it a bad thing to do now??

read 1.

what is this ‘something better’ and how will it force a change in energy use? and you’ll have to be more specific, I don’t understand how your 1., answers my second question…

I mean you seem to be very vehemently against the ETS, surely these are simple question to answer… you know, things you have thought a lot about obviously…

Also, do you have similar feelings toward the Direct Action style approach of the current Opposition??

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/Wind_cash_flow_scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/money_money_money_scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/9_out_of_10scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/old_new_energy_scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/Suggestions_scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/screening2scr.jpg

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/voodoo_scr.jpg

>>> you seem to be very vehemently against the ETS <<<

whats that to do with energy, or climate change?

>>>Also, do you have similar feelings toward the Direct Action style approach of the current Opposition?<<<

I don’t care for it & their not in power in any case

The_observer said:

>>> you seem to be very vehemently against the ETS <<<

whats that to do with energy, or climate change?

ETS stands for Emission Trading Scheme… it’s essentially what the current government are in the process of implementing… its intent is to provide an economic incentive to transition toward more sustainable fuel sources…

>>>what is this ‘something better’ and how will it force a change in energy use?<<<

Candle – light bulb (fluro of course)

The_observer said:

>>>Also, do you have similar feelings toward the Direct Action style approach of the current Opposition?<<<

I don’t care for it & their not in power in any case

OK then… glad to hear this isn’t politically biased…

So again, what is this ‘something better’ and how will it force a change in energy use? and you’ll have to be more specific, I still don’t understand how your 1., answers my second question

>>>ETS stands for Emission Trading Scheme… it’s essentially what the current government are in the process of implementing… its intent is to provide an economic incentive to transition toward more sustainable fuel sources…<<<

No, its a scheme to make traders & others wealthy & redistribute money, & open to terrible corruption as has been evident

>>

The_observer said:

>>>what is this ‘something better’ and how will it force a change in energy use?<<<

Candle – light bulb (fluro of course)

I’m sorry I don’t follow… what exactly do you mean by that statement…

>>>what is this ‘something better’<<<

what, when we run out of fossil fuel?

ask me in a few hundred years

The_observer said:

>>>ETS stands for Emission Trading Scheme… it’s essentially what the current government are in the process of implementing… its intent is to provide an economic incentive to transition toward more sustainable fuel sources…<<<

No, its a scheme to make traders & others wealthy & redistribute money, & open to terrible corruption as has been evident

>>

where exactly is the corruption evident and how will “traders & others” get wealthy?

The_observer said:

>>>what is this ‘something better’<<<

what, when we run out of fossil fuel?

ask me in a few hundred years

so we do nothing till then?

isnt the designated troll forum the other forum?? please?

>>>I’m sorry I don’t follow… what exactly do you mean by that statement…<<<

if you asked someone, say in the year 1650, what will replace candle light, what do you think they would answer?

The_observer said:

>>>I’m sorry I don’t follow… what exactly do you mean by that statement…<<<

if you asked someone, say in the year 1650, what will replace candle light, what do you think they would answer?

OK… so you have no idea what this technology is, only that it will come along sooner or latter and it will force a change in energy use… ??

>>>where exactly is the corruption evident<<<

Honestly, you haven’t read about the corruption in the carbon offset trade?

>>>and how will “traders & others” get wealthy?<<<

by trading an invisible, odourless gas.

so we do nothing till then<<<

thats not what I said & thats not whats happening

>>>OK… so you have no idea what this technology is<<<

its not windmills or solar cells, as they currently stand

thorium

The_observer said:

>>>where exactly is the corruption evident<<<

Honestly, you haven’t read about the corruption in the carbon offset trade?

>>>and how will “traders & others” get wealthy?<<<

by trading an invisible, odourless gas.

what you are describing (carbon offsets) are a relic of a Cap and Trade system, the current ETS proposes no offset trading for this very reason…

perhaps

>>>what you are describing (carbon offsets) are a relic of a Cap and Trade system, the current ETS proposes no offset trading for this very reason<<<

tell me again how the ETS will work?

The_observer said:

>>>what you are describing (carbon offsets) are a relic of a Cap and Trade system, the current ETS proposes no offset trading for this very reason<<<

tell me again how the ETS will work?

people pay a penalty on emissions of greenhouse gases thus making the more expensive/sustainable power sources a better option (commercially).

>>>people pay a penalty on emissions of greenhouse gases thus making the more expensive/sustainable power sources a better option (commercially)<<<

“The second component of the scheme is the ‘trade’ of carbon allowances. Rather than reducing emissions, it is the ‘sweetener’ designed to help polluters swallow the ‘cap pill’. Targeted CO2 reductions are translated into quantifiable commodities, ‘allowances’, which are auctioned by governments to industries and banks, just like shares when state-owned companies are privatised.

Then the trade kicks in. Those who find it expensive to physically reduce emissions can buy those allowances to keep polluting, whereas companies that easily switch off CO2 and exceed their reduction commitment can sell their surplus to those who have failed to clean up their act.

“Herein lies a first risk to be aware of: the introduction of an artificial distance between the market and the emissions to be cut. Indeed, those ‘climate commodities’ are abstracted from the place and type of technology causing the pollution. In other words, a reduction of a certain number of CO2 molecules achieved in Europe by upgrading a gas factory is judged as climatically equivalent to a reduction of the same number of CO2 molecules in Australia by replacing a dirty coal plant with a solar farm. This is regardless of the fundamentally different roles those two acts of reduction play in the transition away from fossil fuel. Remember, this is what we are trying to achieve!

This ‘distance’ is exactly what contributed to the Credit Crisis of 2008 when ‘exotic financial products’ separating credit uncertainty from home loans ended-up bearing no relation with the social reality of the mortgages they were covering.

There is a risk that the same issue might happen to those ‘climate commodities’. If not properly regulated, they could become disconnected from the social necessity to transition away from fossil fuels and totally miss their goal.

Even putting those conceptual considerations aside, industry participants acknowledge there is a real risk that the carbon price initially set at $23 per ton of CO2 by the carbon tax might actually not reach the necessary $150 to drive pollution down. If this happens, polluters will just keep buying cheap allowances on the market instead of investing in more expensive renewable energies.”

Global Carbon Market Hits $176 Billion in 2011

Global Carbon Market trading climbed to $176 billion in 2011 according to the The World Bank, which has just released it’s annual State and Trends of The Carbon Market in 2012. That makes it about the same value as total global wheat production — which supplies about 20% of the calories consumed by the 7 billion people on planet Earth.

“Even putting those conceptual considerations aside, industry participants acknowledge there is a real risk that the carbon price initially set at $23 per ton of CO2 by the carbon tax might actually not reach the necessary $150 to drive pollution down. If this happens, polluters will just keep buying cheap allowances on the market instead of investing in more expensive renewable energies.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

Was 2011 the peak of global carbon trading? Looks all downhill from here.
A record number of emissions products were traded in 2011, even though prices of EU carbon permits and international offsets fells well below $10 a tonne late in the year. The prices have fallen, but the volumes have increased. Look out, the average price in 2011 was $18.80US, but the prices in 2012 are less than half that. It will take a monster increase in volumes in 2012 to keep raising the total market value.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

The EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) limits the carbon dioxide emissions of the 27-nation bloc’s factories and power plants and covers nearly half of EU emissions.
EU prices are down 60% over the last 12 months
“Emissions trading will never find its feet again without radical political action,” said Christine Bortenlaenger, the head of the exchange…

The Borse management claim they were closing because of the fraud and hacking as well as the market downturn:

i wouldn’t worry about it too much

you have no say about anything

thats why the country is going down the tubes

wookiemeister said:

i wouldn’t worry about it too much

you have no say about anything

thats why the country is going down the tubes

There’s more than one tube? Its worse than I thought!

wookiemeister said:

thats why the country is going down the tubes

Tell us more papa…

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

i wouldn’t worry about it too much

you have no say about anything

thats why the country is going down the tubes

There’s more than one tube? Its worse than I thought!

well you do have to push the flush button first, thats what happens when people vote

consider this

when you vote they don;t ask you for any identification, so this means many people end up voting illegally thus swinging the election

it happens all the time

Nonsense, it is part of climate change!

“Australia needs a carbon tax this big,

to save the Great Barrier Reef & Kakadu”