Trucking awful tax…
Tell us something we didn’t know:
Mining giant Rio Tinto has warned the carbon tax is “potentially disastrous” for industry unless a far more generous compensation package is offered than under Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Rio’s managing director, David Peever, says the CPRS design would have resulted in a cost of $3 billion on Rio Tinto’s export business.
He said industry accepts changes must be made to cut carbon [dioxide]
pollution[emissions]. [Really? Why? – Ed]But Mr Peever – who is also a member of the Federal Government’s business roundtable on climate change – says cutting
pollution[emissions] will be expensive and in some cases the technology to cut it has not even been developed yet.“Businesses unable to pass a carbon price through to customers, which is most businesses competing in international markets, would simply have to absorb it,” he said.
“Depending on the magnitude of the carbon price, this may be manageable when market conditions are favourable and margins are healthy.
“But when the cycle turns down, it will inevitably be disastrous.” (source)
And already the Greens are circling the wagons to ensure that compensation to the evil mining industry is kept at rock bottom:
Greens leader Bob Brown said an independent arbiter should decide compensation.
“There’s no way we will back these big corporations being compensated when they don’t deserve compensation,” Senator Brown told Sky News.
“I’m just saying if trade-exposed industries, which include Rio Tinto … want to put in a claim after carbon pricing’s been brought in … let that claim be looked at independently and verified so we don’t have gouging by big industry at the expense of small business.” (source)
Remind me, who gives a flying fig what Bob Brown says again? Oh yes, we all must now. He’s the Prime Minister, after all…
Australian Climate Madness 
Also no surprise:
“..in some cases the technology to cut it has not even been developed yet”
If the govt is expected to compensate big business at the same time as taxing them, what on Earth is the point of taxing in the first place? I guess Brown has signed their death warrant anyway.
Kloppers is the wild card here..
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/09/madness-bhp-boss-wants-price-on-carbon/
Nymex Crude Oil when I checked at 1.00pm @ $105.68 a barrel. Brent even higher.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
Petrol to hit $1.50 per litre.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/03/01/petrol-to-hit-150-a-litre-sunshine-coast/
The above article was from 1st March but petrol is already at $148.9 in our area.
Then add your carbon tax.
Err, please tell me why we need this tax again ?
The online comments for that article contain some very interesting old canards. ‘the miners make too much money’, ‘the miners are subsidised already’ (presumably this means legitimate and legal claiming of business expenses for the purpose of calculating profit). There’s also pot-shots at miners for ‘making too much money doing nothing’ – as if being on welfare isn’t making too much money doing nothing.
If only the Greens voters of this country worked out where the basis for their standard of living came from. The mining industry funnels massive amounts of tax into the government directly and indirectly at Federal, state and local level. When people realise that a national resource economy is not based on farmers markets and organic produce (nor government jobs and subsidies), then perhaps some clear thinking might prevail. Until then, for many people, mining is some remote activity that goes on where greedy men ‘rape the earth’ and then roll around in bags of cash laughing at the Australian taxpayers. Of course, you would expect the Treasurer to clear this up, but he’s only too ready to get the finger painting going out and dab out some rough stereotypes for people to hate.
Maybe the solution is to institute a national service type scheme where unemployed youth receive a basic wage for 12-24 months working in mining and agricultural communities delivering services to local people for the government. This would solve a couple of problems in one stroke – provision of services in towns where the cost of living is high, decreasing youth unemployment and waking people up to the reality of Australia beyond the limits of the 3 or 4 major cities.
I guess he is really Peeved.:-)
“Rio’s managing director, David Peever, says the CPRS design would have resulted in a cost of $3 billion on Rio Tinto’s export business.”
That’s the idea!
“He said industry accepts changes must be made to cut carbon [dioxide] pollution [emissions].”
This tactic is not going to do them any good. Tip toeing around the real issue at hand will not save them their a$$es.
For all the claims that large industries such as this one are providing the funding for the anti-AGW theories, you would at least think they could put up a half-decent counter argument when the opportunity arrises.
Just say it David – “I don’t think made-made CO2 emissions causes climate change” … A little gem like that would set off all the talking heads, and really turn up the heat on this government.