Carbon price deal "months away"

Finally, some half-good news:

The Federal Government has indicated that it will be months before a deal on carbon pricing is reached.

The Government’s multi-party climate change committee, which is chaired by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and includes the Greens and independent MPs, held its fourth meeting in Canberra this morning.

Ms Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet were widely expected to unveil their preferred model after the meeting.

But the committee says no final decisions have been taken on how to price carbon or what assistance will be offered to industry and taxpayers.

It says the final design of the carbon price will only be decided when all the elements of the policy can be considered together, and that should happen in the coming months. (source)

What the heck does that mean? Who cares, anyway – the longer the better. Personally, I suggest starting in about 2200, when the permafrost has melted, and we’re all breathing 100% methane.


  1. Months away. That could mean when the greens welcome their brethren to the Senate and hold the balance of power in their own right.
    Gillard will be given the model by the greens and told to like it.
    A non-declaration of a preferred model now merely avoids future embarrassment when they will be given their marching orders by PM Brown.
    Milne will be on hand to give Gillard a good kicking to be going on with.

  2. No doubt Joolya’s waiting for the completely unbiased Climate Commission to spread their completely independent findings, and explain to us just why it’s so important that we completely screw over our economy in order to prevent complete worldwide armageddon, or whatever it is they’re peddling this week.

  3. Just when I get all depressed, thinking that the scaremongers have pretty much got it all the bag one way or another (propaganda works), an article like this comes along and I’m reminded about how much inertia there really is in the government (any government) and how long it takes for anybody to actually make a decision.

    Feeling better now!

  4. I suspect by 2015 they will all be saying they never believed it, and they were just be cautious.

    History will be rewritten, and the memoirs published.

  5. The Loaded Dog says:

    Imbecile Gillard and her gang of fools are too busy “horsetrading” with the flood tax to be concerned with the carbon tax

    Once again she whores herself for green support:-

    As she struggled to muster enough votes to win approval for her $1.8 billion flood levy, the Prime Minister yesterday scrapped $100m in proposed cuts to her solar flagships program and $264m to the national rental affordability scheme, to win Greens support.

    then she “drops the soap” to win Wilkie’s support:-

    It is understood the government has offered to undo an $88 million budget cut to the Australian Learning and Teaching Fund to secure his support.

    That, too, was a program Gillard said had to go to free up cash for Queensland.

    This means that the Greens and Wilkie have now hived off 25 per cent of the flood levy intended to rebuild Queensland.

    What a bunch of dangerous incompetent clowns.

  6. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    For a Labor Party that has been in government for over three years, you’d think, by now, it would want to get its policies right… just for once.

    The Gillard government actually believes a carbon tax will slow down climate change. The trouble is, the IPCC has never addressed the right question.

    Climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer, seems to have the right questions that need to be answered before any climate action is considered in the first place:

    “This entire controversy stems from Western governments spending tens of billions of dollars pursuing an answer to the wrong question – what is the risk of human-induced (global warming) climate change?

    “The correct scientific question is: what are the causes of climate change, both natural and human?

    “Once determined, the secondary question can be answered: globally, how significant are human influences compared with natural influences?

    “Then the third question can be answered: how significant are human
    influences on local and regional climate change compared with natural influences?”

    It seems to me that these are the three vital questions for which every government should be seeking answers before even thinking of taking climate action. They might even discover there is no need for any action!

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      It seems to me that these are the three vital questions for which every government should be seeking answers before even thinking of taking climate action.

      Governments may be interested in answering those questions if their intent WAS primarily about climate action; and not wealth redistribution…

      (EDENHOFFER): But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

%d bloggers like this: