So is diesel fuel going to cop the c/tax or not??.

The Greenies want 25c per Lt they are in power now arnt they ?

Regards
Oldpop

I am with you oldpop but if I wrote what i would like I probably be wiped from this forum LOL

I'm on the same track as you Guys. can't rant over it here to much, But it does impact on travel costs, if it goes ahead, and the open campfire, Now thats a real worry with the G brigade!!.

Axle.

On the bright side, I hear Bob and Julia are in bed together.(Sorry if I have offended anyone)

Yuck Michael,

Thats a mental image I didn't need to have lol,


Cheers Wilko

I think you are about spot on there Oldpop as I believe that the current diesel rebate for commercial operators averages out at around 24 cpl

Julia said it's a carbon tax.
Julia said it is supposed to stop carbon (supposedly now a pollutant) being put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
Julia reassured the coal industry the carbon tax would not cause job losses in the coal industry & that the coal industry would continue to grow while the generation of electricity goes from 80% coal generated to 10% in this country. But most of our coal is exported anyway.
So how does that work? If it is burnt in China it doesn't produce carbon. Is that it?
She is just talking that stuff the bulls turn grass into & 60% of Australians aren't buying it.
They are talking about leaving fuel out for now only because it is political suicide & even green voters would turn against them for that at the moment.
I think this is the first time I have hated a Labor government. Probably because they have the Greens dictating to them.

Stephen,Mate,.. I'm sure quiet a few would like to see Bob Brown attempt to drive a non polluting whatever from Tassie to Canberra!....LOL.



Cheers Axle.

I've been told that riding a bike makes you fart more. They may tax that.

The green lead lobor gov are now saying that tree planting is not good for the environment because some other gas is given off which is as bad as carbon.
So looks like you won't be able to dodge the tax by planting trees.
I wonder if they will, not only check you grocery bill for beans, but also check your garden for trees.
Gee they could tax you double for a bean tree.
Gee I could be one of the big polluters they talk about. Got a bean tree, beat beans & ride a bike.

Soon to come, tax on campfires. There will be a discount if the fire was necessary to cook food. An extra tax if the fire was used for mood setting (kickin back and enjoying the surroundings). Extra if the fire was the cause of you getting "amorous" (especially if you are married, can't have that the Greens don't condone this type of activity) and a super tax on those who use butane gas to reseat tyres. So good luck campers enjoy it while it lasts. Mick

And look out if you light a fire to cook up a feed of baked Beans. How will they calcuate the Emissions from that scenario.
Duke

Givem time Duke, Givem time.

Who remembers the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles ?? LOL RAFLMAO

Hmmm, Big polluters there :)

Who are "they" David? I haven't seen anything on this yet and would like to read about it if you could point me to somewhere. Being a student of the black art of economics I try to read all the reliable stuff that comes out from all sources but just haven't seen anything on this yet. I did, however, hear Alan Jones dribbling on a few days back along similar lines but he didn't refer to any credible source.

I haven't seen anything in writing . but the general talk around building sites is the carbon tax. Makes sense though . When you look at the amount of steel , copper cement etc that is in a new house. Adelaide brighton cement are looking at a huge carbon tax bill, that has to be passed on to customers or they will go under. BHP in Whyalla also. It may not get us in the face but sure will stab us in the back one way or another.

I much prefer Abbott's 'solution'. Give $30 billion (ATO costings) of taxpayers dollars to polluters and cross your fingers in hope - or in Abbott's case pray to god. Strange though that he can't find an economist who will support his 'direct action' plan over a market-based scheme which puts a price on carbon.

I think the report that david m is refering to was in the herald sun paper in Melborne , and also on 3aw radio, the report came direct from the management of the HBA [ housing building association ] Though from memory the figure on rise of cost was 6-8% but that is bad enough As on a $200000 hous at 6% = $12000.
The flow on cost from this tax will dramatically effect our daily cost of living, and even worse for those employees and contractors working for the that are most affected, And maybe the timing is not right YET for the greens and labour, but if they are fare dinkum, how could they not include fuel, in there so-called pollution tax. WE HAVE TO TAKE A STAND !!!

but if they are fare dinkum, how could they not include fuel....

I'm sure you already know the answer but just in case. Major policies, particularly one as complex and profound as this, are always compromises. They are also starting points - the market will eventually shake out things such as exemptions and pricing. The decision to exempt fuel would also have taken into account the potential inflationary effect.

Despite your panic the sky won't fall in, as it hasn't in Europe or NZ where carbon pricing is already part of the economic environment. I suggest you read this http://www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/overview.aspTreasury Overview or this Treasury Report. They might help ease your anxiety.

There are 2 types of people out there bazooka, those that don;t believe a word that comes this present goverment, that has a track record of failure in everything they touch, and those who believe the spin and defend the twisted corrupt lies that the goverment spins, they mention NZ but don;t tell you how low the carbon price is over there, they mention Germany, but we have relations over there, and the story julia spreads, is not the story that the german people believe ?? and as far as europe goes, Julia is going to make more money in the first 6 months of the implementation of this tax, Than the whole of europe has made in 5 years.
Lets get real, not only will she make billions, both with the new taxes, AND the added GST components of the increased prices, But then she has to get her goverment to oversee and implement these very complicated procedures, when they cannot even put a pink bat in a ceiling without burning the house down.

Trust this woman and her party when she does not have the right or MANDATE of the people, no way !!! however if you can name One thing that this goverment has done that is beneficial to the country, please tell me because i cannot think of any.

I know i cannot change your veiw and you know you cannot change my veiw, However AN ELECTION would at least give a Mandate to the successful party to follow the will of the majority, is this 'not what they should be doing ?? dazren

You are right on one point Dazren, your argument is not convincing. What is particularly unconvincing is the way you equate your relations supposed opinions with those of the general German public, apparently in regard to some 'story Julia spreads'. I doubt very much that the German public actually knows or cares but out of interest what precisely is 'the story' you are referring to? Did they have a poll in Germany that went unreported - even by the shock-jocks?

Glad you raised the batts issue again - been dealt with in another thread but always happy to clarify in the interests of truth. Another case of shock-jock mis-information I'm afraid - ie don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant. The facts are that there were less fires on average from that program than would normally be expected from batt installation. And that despite the reckless behaviour of some greedy private operators and poor regulation of the industry by State governments. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

As far as a mandate is concerned I assume you are not familiar with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty - one of the principles of our democracy. This confers the right on governments to govern without having to refer every policy back to the electorate. And we certainly don't have an election every time an opinion poll suggests a govt is unpopular. Didn't apply when Howard introduced the GST and shouldn't happen now - for obvious reasons.

When last I looked the Australian people voted for a hung parliament less than 12 months ago, and like it or not, all procedures were correctly followed before Gillard was installed as PM. I suspect it might surprise you but at the last election approx 30,000 more Australians voted for the ALP than the coalition. I wasn't one of them.

Bazooka, as i said nothing i say will be believed by you [ unless i agree ?? ] and nothing you say to me will sway my veiw either, you seem to be so well versed on not only australian politics, but also world politics, Not everyone agrees with you and not everyone agrees with me, so you keep propping Julia up, and i will keep doing what i think is right also. but if you do not think that australia's political farce is not making us look like backward fools throughout the world, may i suggest you read this article from the Respected Wall Street Journal, However you will dismiss it, as what would they know ???

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576447910279095574.html?KEYWORDS=australia

The opinion in your link is not even attributed Dazren. My guess is that it was copy provided by an arm of the Australian conservatives to the journal (frankly it looks like it was written by a junior member of the young 'liberals'), but irrespective it has about the same level of analysis and credibility as your German claim.

I think it's time you researched minority governments. There are, and have been, plenty of successful minority govts both here and overseas. Currently the UK has one. They work well when you have mature people committed to good government. And I seriously doubt that we are indeed being looked at as 'backward fools' overseas (although there are nutters on every continent I grant you). I will concede however that people overseas reading about the constant whining by sections of the Australian populace and the incessant talking down of the economy by Abbott and others have every right to think we are bonkers. Apparently our economy and lifestyle are the envy of the world although you wouldn't think so from the nonsense which appears regularly in the Murdoch press in particular.

Bazooka you had me interested in your argument until I saw this

"Didn't apply when Howard introduced the GST and shouldn't happen now - for obvious reasons."

While JH had said he wouldnt introduce a consumption tax-he did announce that he supported it BEFORE an election not after.

Not sure of the rest of your research but you really do need to ensure that your facts are correct before tearing others apart.

There was one thing you could rely on JH for-it was difficult to be confused over his position on any major issue

Fisho

Apologies, I should have been clearer. What I was suggesting was that just because a policy is unpopular it does not mean we should immediately down tools and demand parliament be dissolved so we can have an election (as Dazren seemed to be suggesting).

You would acknowledge surely though that one of the major planks of Rudd's election campaign in 07 was an ETS - blocked by a hostile senate, otherwise we would have had some sort of scheme already in place. On top of that the rules changed significantly following the 2010 election, and deals had to be done. Gillard and co were not so anti-carbon pricing as to make that a deal breaker (trawl back and see what deals Abbott was offering, you might be astonished). Her big mistake was twofold - (i) not being brave enough to take a carbon tax to the people (my guess is that they knew it was a difficult sell - the ETS it was far too complex and very few understood what it would achieve, even if they accepted climate change (frankly, as complex as it is, I'm gobsmacked that so many sceptics exist); and (ii) ruling it out completely.

As for Howard - you are kidding I hope. His 'non-core' promises have become legend. A deceiver of the highest order. Perhaps you forget how he told us all he hadn't committed Australia to the Iraq invasion before discussing it with his party, the parliament, or the people of this nation? George Bush then let the cat out of the bag when he visited Australia. Truth about his knowledge, or otherwise, of the falsity of the children overboard incident will also eventually come out. Just two things which quickly come to mind. I give him some due though for 3 things in particular - no make that 4: (1) gun control following Port Arthur; (2) taking on the TNI in East Timor (reports suggested that he was in line for a Nobel Peace Prize until they looked at his treatment of refugees); (3) introduction of the GST; (4) being the only post-war PM to lose his seat at an election.

Incidentally, if challenging sloganeering and hysterical flag-waving is 'tearing others [arguments] apart' I'm guilty as charged. The way I see it is this. There is a lot of simplistic and downright incorrect (ignorant) rubbish proffered as opinion on here from time to time. Sometimes it deserves to be challenged, often it is a reflection on the poster (can't be bothered to be informed so chucks out a populist one liner - we've all seen it, possibly all been guilty of it - I certainly have). We can draw our own conclusions. In most things political there is no right or wrong and I respect well-argued points of view even when I don't agree with them. Most people are good hearted and when it all boils down hopefully the things which unite us are bigger than those which divide.

Anyway, this site is primarily about 4WDing, the great outdoors, and the (mostly) good people who care about it. I've said more than enough on this subject so I'll say adieu, and happy and safe travelling.

Fisho, Do not give any credit to bazooka, he has not ripped anyone apart !! Just like Julia, he rants, raves, spreads bull---t quotes figures, and fabricated distorted stories that were dreamed up by the labour party to confuse the masses in the belief that the majority of people are like silly sheep, and will start to believe the ALP reterick, However as just about every poll taken in the last for months has proved they got it wrong again, the majority of australians are not stupid sheep, they have well and truly woken up to the ALP and even died in the wool old labour voters are turning away in droves, I think Julia's claim to fame, will not only that she was the first female australian prime minister, but 1/ the way she got that position ?, 2/ the way she lied to the electorate to scrape over the line, the icompetance of he party to effectively implement any of of policies, and her lies to introduce a carbon dioxide tax, with the potential to ruin the stability of the country,and claim it has something to do with saving the planet !! and she has the cheek to say Abbott is running a scare campaign, when it is being run by the ALP [ and we know i t]

so lets just get back to the normal forum conversations from here on, as this is my last word on the subject, as i do not want any of the above to happen, but some do ???? most do not believe Julia ! but some do ?? Bring on an Election !!!!! dazren

I shouldn't bother replying Dazren, your post says more about you than it does me. However, I don't appreciate being called a LIAR on a public forum. I'll give you the chance to either show where I have done as you say [quote: "spreads bull---t quotes figures, and fabricated distorted stories that were dreamed up by the labour party to confuse the masses"], or I'll expect a recant/apology. That you have very little clue on the subject is obvious from your posts - your juvenile attacks simply confirm the obvious.

Seems I was too early with my post at the very bottom of this thread.....come on folks be nice to each other and play the policy and not the person.

She is sooo HOT

"even know what "carbon" actually is?"
Yes she does, economist told her.
Not environmentalist, an economist.
An economist has the plan to fix the environment.
Just brilliant.

Ever since this climate change has reared it's head I have been taking notice. I have discovered that in December it is hot then in July it is cold, seems she is right it does change.

"Climate Change" is a funny thing, we all do talk of "floods" and big, or what we think is big events but are they really or is it simply the same old cycle turning it's wheels, we have not been here in Australia for that long at all, an old man in Arnhem land was telling me storys of waters that would flood in right up to the base of the hills flooding ALL the low lying areas ...
We also have now gone and built houses on "flood plains" and farm the "flood plains" .... um if it is a flood plain then it must "flood", the rich deep silty soils of flood plains are only there from floods, the massive dry lake pans in the middle of australia are lakes, that must have filled up with water maney times before we even started counting it and the birds always waited for the cycle to fly in the millions to breed, look out in the desert and you will find remains of old forest, we found remains of old rain forest up around cape leveque with tree trunks 6-8 feet accros .....
I guess we need to remember the world is never going to end, we humans will wipe ourself out within a few hundred years without a doubt at the rate we are going and it will all start again, and the temp will probally have fallen by 15 deg with all the smoke but it will clear within a short time and away it all goes again...
JG and BB are probally only short term problems that can/need to be fixed quickly..
Av a nice day all.
Joe

All comes down to the age old economic truism of supply and demand. For every barrel of oil about 75 ltrs comes off as petrol, 30ltrs as diesel/jet fuel - the diesel/jet fuel mix can vary ie the fraction can result in 30ltrs of diesel or 30 ltrs of jet fuel or any combination of that number but the amount of overall fuel in this fraction cannot be varied. Now with the ever-increasing number of diesel vehicles on the road (>85% in Europe are diesel), almost 90% in India and a similar number in China the demand for diesel is skyrocketing. Also allowing that this fraction of oil is also used for home heating in many areas of the northern hemisphere we can see that that bit of crude oil that can be made into diesel has a high call on it.
There are some out there who think that you can get much more diesel out of a barrel of crude that petrol....that is simply not so. Similarly, there are some who think that it is cheaper to produce diesel....again not so. So the bottom line folks is that it all comes down to supply and demand.....and frankly the demand north of the Equator in our region is growing so rapidly that IMHO it will be cheaper to run our 4bys on Bundy Rum soon I'm thinking.....

...or course the Bundy would have to be "de-tuned" somewhat :-)

Bundy, shhhhhhh dont say it to loud cuz she just might hear it, old BB wants all of Aussie to be one big National Park so would gladly get rid of all the cane feilds ...... if we run our cars on Bundy car theft would double also, we just can not do that, Bundy is a very precious resource and we need to protect it ...
Touch Bundy and it is civil war.. hahah
Cheers
Joe

I had a brief stint at the Eromanga refinery in the early 90's. Whilst I am by no means an expert, the Nocatunga crude was refining out at 75 lts diesel for every 100 lts crude. The quality of the crude was such that the refinery was running their generators (it was an American plant, therefore 110V) on straight crude oil in summer.

Diesel is refined out of crude oil by distillation, first cut diesel is about as good a fuel as you will get, before putting in all the additives.

They used to refine out diesel and some other products including naptha for their own use and local sales, the remainder was put into the pipeline to the refineries in Brisbane.

There is a good discussion on how diesel (and other fuels and by products) are distilled from crude at THIS SITE - pretty much in layman's terms.

...also if you are interested in the pricing debate among other things there is a good discussion HERE

Good reply Have a go"......LOl..LOl....Yeah! lets get behind Big ears; Going No where at the moment,Hopefully he won't put our fires out!!..lol.


Cheers Axle,

I'm pretty sure Bobs not on big ears Xmas card list. I probably shouldn't be joking about it. That red hair hmm can simply crush this country ( we are slowly seeing it now). I think Bobbie has more to do with it than we all realise. Another point Id like to add is thanks to EO for not stopping this thread. As for the camp fire thing, there is another public holiday idea lol.
Cheers
Sharon
Aka Old Girl

Sadly Big Ears has no way of unscrambling the egg.
It's just a tax. The sky won't fall in.
We will not notice much difference at all.

But just like the climate change alarmists claim "We'll all be rooned", so do the Carbon Tax alarmists....

Royce ...that the best piece of logical argument I've heard on this issue and you are soooooooooooooooo right!

I reckon the carbon tax is simply trying to create a financial incentve to reduce it. Sadly the "big companies" who will be taxed will pass any additional costs onto the consumers. So really noone wins but the Govt taxing us.

I'm with you on this Dunworking....ie that our weather patterns run in cycles and globally we have ice ages etc......Now I'll be long dead and buried/burnt before it happens but if we heat up further we certainly do have a problem not the least of which will be the milllions of displaced people around the world. I'm not interested in the politics of this whole issue but on the bulk of the science we are certainly facing a problem. And, I would hope that humans would have enough smarts to at least try to address the issue. When the planet was at the peaks and troughs of the previous ice ages there weren't any humans.....now there are and hopefully we can channel our collective intellect (not mine cause I ain't that smart and don't profess to be) towards looking for a scientific solution and leave the bloody politics out of it.
We all seem happy for science to solve the medical mysteries, the engineering mysteries and the raft of other mysteries of our time.........so why not this one. Rather than a Liberal/Labor/National/Green debate let's turn this into a debate of the science.....the REAL science and not the POLITICAL science.

Dead right Bonz,
If I were a company that will be slugged this tax, well, that would be cutting into my profit, wouldn't it?
So to keep my profit at a level that keeps my business viable, employing people, and giving me a return for my investment, I know as sure as day follows night I will be passing on this increase. Any one who things other wise is a fool.
Also as the price of goods increase, so does the GST that is raised from the increase. A cunning way to increase revenue without increasing GST. Just introduce a tax that does that by default.

I think you are spot on Patrol22. I would like to add just a little bit of info to everyone.....just watch the servos with 4 cents off the price of advertised fuel. You know the companies that encourage US to shop in their supermarkets & receive a reward of discount fuel...I don't know about others but at some "Supermarket owned" servos in Victoria the price of fuel is 2 cents more expensive & sometimes 5 cents P/litre more expensive at these sites than other servos....sooo....when you hand over your discount ticket/docket you are NOT really getting 4 cents off....are you. Just watch the prices in your State!!!

The extra cost impost on the so called "polluters", is supposed to drive the creation of new technology, but what is easier, creating new technology, or simply passing on the extra costs to the consumer?? regards Michael

Unfortunately the easiest option for manufacturers is to get it made in China.

In our fragile economic state, [ recource boom exempted ] the so-called big producers have but 2 options !! they can either pass on the costs, to maintain their profit on investment. in Australia, OR they can move off-shore and probaly double their profits,

The Australian economy is floundering at the moment....

Wrong thread Michael - try the Friday Funnies. Not unsurprisingly your throw away comment isn't supported by the free-market financial markets or economists, who rate the Australian economy as one of the strongest in the western world. One of the reasons for the high $A, which itself has significant pros and cons for our economy.

Come on now Bazooka....don't go bringing any facts into the debate you might cause a bad case of indigestion that's irreversible :-)

Ha ha..... good on you fellas!
It is quite an effort to wade this far down through the hype, but good to see you both here.

Strong economy.
High employment.
No big problems.... so make the small ones big.

Hi Bazooka & Royce,
"free-market financial markets or economists, who rate the Australian economy as one of the strongest in the western world"

"Strong economy.
High employment.
No big problems.... so make the small ones big. "

This maybe so in some parts of the country, And it depends on what industry or market you are employed in.
Eg, Our small town has just laid off two full time butchers in the one shop.Only two Butchers in town, My wife managers a Deli in the local supermarket, she has had to step down some very good employees and cut back every casuals hours. This year will be a shocking year for Cane harvesting in the Clarence Valley has well as the north coast of NSW. Farmers are doing it pretty tuff around the country due to adverse weather conditions.
5 weeks ago in Grafton I was in one of the industrial estates on a Friday morning as I am sometimes and it was deadly quiet, no banging of metal, the beeping of reversing machinery, trucks, that kinda thing. usually there is all kinds of noise going on. The weather has also caused havoc with tourists visiting coastal towns.
The amount of tradies around our parts out of work for a couple of reason, The weather the biggest, a lot can't get machines on to blocks to get the building out of the ground, and the big project home mobs screwing the living guts out of everyone, and red tape just to top that off. Some tradies are just taking home a wage, nothing more for a 60 hour week, the same as some business people.
Everything is rising, EG, my Contractors license went up $50. Some might say it's only 50 bucks, but that's a 33% increase, power 18%, Rates are looking at at 7% this year, rego's, Insurances, green slips, it all adds up and it is really hurting some people.
And all thing impacts the tourist industry that was the 5th fastest growing industry in the country till the GFC hit.
So I'm sorry guys, I've got to agree with Michael.
The country is in a position that it has huge implications for all.
Cheers.

If you think these are bad economic times you're going to be in for an extremely rude shock when the Chinese economy eventually tapers off. India's rise might help but there's only so much mineral wealth for this country to extract. We've been shielded from the worst effects of the GFC through China's growth/demand - and of course prudent and timely stimulus by the government, a fact acknowledged by even conservative economists.

But how's this for hypocrisy and irresponsibility. The man who thinks he should (already) be PM wants you to believe that climate science is all voodoo, and climate change is 'crap'. And besides Australia's contribution to greenhose gases is tiny - insignificant in a global sense. So, following the script you agree, Tony is our man. How then do you justify his policy to hand over $30 billion (yes $30,000,000,000) of taxpayers dollars to fix a non-existent (or insignificant) problem? If irrationality and hypocrisy were admirable traits in a leader your man would surely be one of the best. Where's Turnbull when you need him.

I've never denied climate change, I do agree that we have to look after the resources that we have better and care for the environment, But I don't believe a tax of this nature is the right lever to make social change. Social change comes through education and knowledge, not through taxing the guts out of people and then compensating them..
I am not going to get into the politics of it all, that is for other forums to argue in.
I as a whole, yes the country is traveling along in good shape, but there are a hell of a lot of people hurting out there through sheer greed and some really dumb policies from all levels of government not just the Feds.

Axle asked a question "So is diesel fuel going to cop the c/tax or not??" and to date there is not a clear indication fomr the government if this is the case or not, which leads me to think that there possibly will be a price rise on diesel from this tax, which will have a knock on effect to every bodies back pocket, But wait, I will be compensated for it, Yet our house hold does everything we possibly can to cut back on our footprint on the planet as do a hell of a lot of others.

I don't believe you can have an economist telling us how to reduce CO2, just like you can't have an environmentalist telling us how to make money through taxes.

So will i cancel my Accountants appointment next week for my tax and make one with the Hippie Greenie tree hugger dude down the road instead?

Cheers

".....to date there is not a clear indication from the government if this is the case or not..."

In fact there is, as explained by Patrol22 above. Or a simple search will answer the question - if the silence of the shock jocks and Abbott didn't already tell you the answer. Far better though to repeat the mis-information and keep up the hype eh?

You are correct that education plays a part in effecting change, but it can only achieve so much - particularly in the face of mindless repetition of nonsense in lieu of intelligent debate. Your comment about economists and CO2 is simplistic to say the least - the best lever for change is demonstrably economic for all manner of social change. Governments can only regualte so much, market forces will eventually do the rest.
----------------------------------
As for some of the comments above regarding weather. There is a fundamental difference between climate and weather. If you don't understand it there are plenty of resources on the internet which will explain it to you. As Molly would say - Do yourself a favour....'

I am sorry, i brushed over that post by Patrol22, I was kinda bemused by you banging on about Abbott, obviously you have a hate for the opposition leader just as I have for this government.

Mate, you've miss understood what I was saying.
"There is a fundamental difference between climate and weather. If you don't understand it there are plenty of resources on the internet which will explain it to you. As Molly would say - Do yourself a favour...."

I was not even remotely comparing the two, Weather has play a part in economic hardship for a lot at the moment.
LOL,

Bazooka, I meant retail spending.. Its not happening and i guess its due to the coming carbon dioxide tax. More and more retail cash is going overseas via Ebay and the like... Levi jeans for example, $45 plus $15 postage from USA, beats $110 here, you cant blame people for buying cheaper. We seem to have constant sales now and people are not buying at regular prices. Yes the mining is going great but how much of our land are we prepared to dig huge open cut mines in, a lot of prime farming land has been sold to China and other countries so it cuts the middle man out,,, Us, Australians. It will be one huge quarry soon.. I think the mining has gotten out of hand and we should be looking more towards more local manufacturing, but its a matter of Australians getting behind local products, but i cant see it happening!!! Michael

I was commenting about references to weather by other posters - hence the dotted line.

I don't 'hate' Abbott - I simply don't accept, or respect, his politics in many areas of public policy which are important to this nation. Given the meek acquiescence by some posters on here surely it is only reasonable to comment on his position on climate change/action. I doubt if any of them will comment on his $30 billion dollar handout (costed by him at one third of that, as appears to be standard practice). Very inconvenient 'policy' that, and one not supported by economists anywhere it appears.

I am similarly unenamoured by Gillard's lack of vision, not to mention her poor administration of the BER stimulus which allowed 'rorting' by private contractors. I prefer rational policy and debate and have a distinct dislike for ignorance, whatever one's politics are. But I am interested in why you 'hate' the government. Is it because they gave pensioners a significant pay rise after 11m years of SFA? Or that their stimulus helped guide Australia through the GFC? Or their additional funding of education and health? Or perhaps their policy on mental health (one of the few areas of bipartisanship)? Or maybe their watering down of the ridiculous work choices legislation? Or even their attempt to get a better share of Australia's mineral wealth for the benefit of all Australians? Or their actions in trying to claw back the terrible water/salinity situation in the Murray Basin?

Frankly I would prefer that this site kept clear of politics as much as possible, but for the sake of balance I'm happy to have my say from time to time.

where dya get Levi's for $45 Michael?
would you have a URL?

Ta

Spot on Mike!,... But Sadly i personally think its to late!




Cheers Axle.

BonZ!! I Have seen them on Ebay for that total price, sometimes the postage is cheaper or dearer but still for around $60 total.. I havent bought them personally. Michael

Thanx Michael!

You must be kidding. A simple search of the internet will verify Patrol22's post.

I'm not sure what your credentials are but hopefully you won't mind if I take your comments on the effect of carbon pricing with a grain of salt. Personally I prefer Treasury's assessments.

Bazooka,
as an ex public servant with over 35 years in the circus, I will say that Treasury nearly always gets its figures right.At least those that are published.
however they have always been in favour of the then party in power.
just as you get lies and statistics you get lies and assessments
those who control the PS know what side of the bread the butter is on.
if the assessment wasnt the one the party in power seeks it doesnt appear.
cheers
Howard

Yes Howard, we should acknowledge that they operate under certain constraints. That said their analysis is likely tp be three orders of magnitude more accurate than anecdotal comments on a 4WD website.

Interesting Duke. So how exactly will pricing carbon bring mining to its knees? That's an absolute doozy.

You appear to know one of the basic reasons for a carbon tax - to reduce greenhouse gas production which affects global temperature and sea acidity to name but two significant problems for the planet's inhabitants. But of course that isn't the only, or even the primary reason whay a tax on carbon is a good idea. It will compel better use of existing energy resources and encourage investment in alternative, renewable energy sources. The oil price shocks of the 70s and more recently might be a distant memory for some, for others the search for cost-effective long-term alternatives and the weaning from our reliance on fossil fuels is long overdue.

The fact that many large companies support carbon pricing gives the lie to the hysteria being drummed up in the usual quarters. Business has consistently told the government to get on with it - they want and need policy certainty so that they can plan their investment.

No mention in your post of Abbott's $30 billion handout to polluters I see. By the way the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling recently released an analysis which found that the 'average' Australian household is $23 a day better off than it was five years ago. Wonder what the whingers had to say about that.

I wonder how much Chile and Iceland will pay for there volcanoes spewing up millions of tons of pollution. They may need help from the IMF or maybe we could send them some money as we are so rich.

Ah the old volcano emissions myth makes it's entrance (is the economic disaster debate lost already?)

Volcanoes and greenhouse

Bazooka,
For every article you post backing the human cause of climate change, I could get on google and post a counter argument. This tells me that the science is not settled on this matter. I agree that we should look after our environment better but also take a more positive approach at reducing pollution.(See my thread 87633) I for one wouldn't mind paying more tax so the government could invest and own ( that means the taxpayers own ) clean power generating projects. I am not sure where you live, but in south east QLD alot of people are doing it tough. The economic stimulus package was short lived ( Harvey Norman did well with all the new plasmas that were bought ) now the real downturn is hitting home. Things must be going well in other parts of Australia for you to say that households to be better off by $23 a week, I think that is why the new term of duel economy has been spoken of lately. Don't get me wrong I own a earthmoving business and things are going well but I don't think it is across the board.

Sorry Bazooka I forgot to add this http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/climate-sceptics-speak-out/story-e6freuy9-1225808398590

Now the real downturn is hitting home....

I don't want to keep repeating myself so I'll simply refer you to my link at the bottom of this thread and challenge you to show me some data which supports your statement. All economic indicators say you are wrong. I'm not so naive to think that everyone is doing well (that is NEVER the case) - especially those hit hard by recent disasters (not to mention the dual speed economy), but it appears that the biggest whingers are precisely those who sit comfortably on their $100K+ incomes. By the way the figure was $23 per day not week, and took into account the value of govt services, superannuation, tax cuts etc - not just $ in the paypacket. It was based on REAL DATA, not anecdotal comment.

As far as climate change is concerned - I don't accept the scepticism, the science is in if you take an unbiased view, but even if it is incorrect surely we should adopt the principle of risk management - prepare for the worst possibilities and hope for the best outcome. That said, if you believe that thousands of scientists and political leaders across the globe have it totally wrong how on earth could you support Abbott's plan to hand over $20 billion+ (he says 10, Treasury says 30 so I'll be kind and split the difference) of taxpayers funds to big polluters? I have to admit the 'logic' behind that policy has me totally perplexed.

If you are serious in knowing about about issues important to this nation (I've no reason to think otherwise) I'd suggest to you that the Daily BellyLaugh is the last place you'd want to look for unbiased and reasoned commentary on pretty much any issue. Plimer for example wrote a book on human-induced climate change supposedly based on scientific knowledge. Only trouble is that much of his 'science' was simply wrong, and some was no more than his personal conjecture. Google it, see for yourself. Throw Monckton into your search for good measure and draw your own conclusions.

Bazooka,
Do you go down to the garden of a night and get your info from the Fairies or do you honestly believe what Brown sorry Juliar,( i keep forgetting who is supposed to be running this Country) are trying to sell to some gullible Australians.
Thank god that is only about 25% of the people.
The 30Million you keep bringing up about Abbotts solution is about the same as the Labour -Greens advertising cost putting the propaganda to the people.
Have fun and i will catch up with you in a Cave somewhere.
Duke

$30 BILLION Duke, not million - straight into the pockets of polluting businesses to solve an apparently non-existent problem. Why aren't you screaming about that I wonder. No doubt you believe what the Murdoch tabloids tell you - that pricing carbon will ruin the economy, lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and possibly even result in erectile dysfunction. The facts are that most people, especially those in lower income brackets, will be compensated for cost increases and economists say the overall effect on the economy will be minimal.

May I suggest Bazooka, that you get up from you keyboard and go walk the streets of some of the real Australia and talk to people, that have been laid off work, businesses that have shut because they are competing with cheaper labour and imports, people that struggle to pay electricty bills that are continuing to rise, instead of posting links.
With respect, I, if I could be bothered, could find links to just about anything to prove just about anything.
It's obvious that you & I live in different worlds and see things differently..
Yet there are couple in Sydney that struggle on $190 000 a year.
Give me a break please.
We get by on less than $56 000 raising 3 kids paying mortgage, running two cars.

"But the reality is that incomes continue to grow at a faster pace than prices"
That is rubbish, complete rubbish.
Tell that to lower income families.
I shall watch from a distance now, because this is getting ridiculous.
Cheers.

With respect (don't you love that phrase, almost always used with exactly the opposite meaning in mind), the facts don't support your conclusions, as the article clearly states. Of course in any economy at any time there are always businesses struggling, people being laid off, some people doing better than others, and prices increasing (one of the ways companies make long term profits, expand and employ more people - recessions and depressions being the only times when prices actually contract). It certainly doesn't help one bit when the conservative media and power-mad politicians preach doom and gloom every chance they get. That only saps confidence and increases anxiety unnecessarily.

The measure of any govt and society is what they do about it, and how they prepare for the immediate and long-term future. And that certainly includes management of the environment and energy. After more than a decade of neglecting infrastructure, training, and research (not to mention pensions) it's hardly surprising that there's now a helluva lot of catching up to do. Perhaps you aren't aware but the world is still trying to recover from a huge financial crisis, and areas of this country are getting back on their feet after enormous natural disasters.

Frankly I prefer a govt which looks after its disadvantaged and doesn't give massive tax breaks and handouts to the rich at the expense of others, but hey that's just me.

Bazooka,
Is your real name Wayne Swan? Come on now, we live in a global economy and if we keep driving the cost of doing business in this country all it will do is drive business over seas. Yes we have a lot of resources in this country but if we drive up the cost of value adding all we will export is jobs. Do you really think our competitors are willing to drive up their costs. Also it didn't take long for this government to give away the futures fund now they have to drive up taxes again. By the way, I am self employed and will be self funded in retirement. I don't care what they throw at me, I will overcome the hurdles.

As with any major policy there will be teething problems but getting the exemptions and compensation right for companies which have to compete OS has been a major part of the planning, as I'm sure you are aware Michael (hope I have that right - apologies if not).

Not sure what you mean regarding the Future Fund though. It still exists and is operating in much the same way as it did under Howard. On top of that Labor has established and funded INFRASTRUCTURE AUSTRALIA to try and overcome decades of neglect by the governments of both persuasion. Perhaps you mean the temporary budget debt Labor racked up to stimulate the economy during the peak of the GFC? Well that argument has been well and truly put to bed, and the consensus is that it was both prudent and timely - good policy, money well spent.

Driving up taxes? Frankly that is a tired argument, and one which sadly is conditioning (some) people into believing we can have wealth and services without paying our way. You can see similar attitudes in USA (a nation living way beyond its means) and of course the same 'thinking' lead to the current situation in Greece (although their situation is at the extreme end of the spectrum obviously). Governments have to find ever increasing amounts of money to simply maintain the status quo of services, let alone improve health, education, pensions, infrastructure etc. We missed a huge chance to boost the coffers significantly with the watering down of the mining super-profits tax (our kids will thank us for selling off the farm cheaply no doubt), business receipts are temporarily down due to a combination of depressed global conditions and environmental factors yet we are still on track to a balanced budget within 3 years - way ahead of any other advanced economy. Overall we are doing very well thank you, despite the hysteria and negativity being rammed down our throats.

I think I've already said it elsewhere but a price on carbon will eventually be very good for this nation. It may do little to reduce greenhouse gases but it will undoubtedly lead to innovation in energy use minimisation, and ultimately the development of alternative energy sources. I'm prepared to pay something towards securing our future energy needs even if I'm not around to see great benefits (these things often take decades). Incidentally I see China is about to trial a carbon tax. We are far from alone with this policy despite what you read in some sections of the press.

Bazooka, It seems after all that we can meet in the middle. We both want the same outcomes but from different angles. You should note that Australia was in a great position to see out the GFC because of the prudent leadership of the Howard government. Just had to throw that one in. Cheers Mick