Carbon tax pressures mount

That's not the kind of "rocky road" I meant!

The road will get very rocky for the Labor/Green alliance in the next few months:

THE carbon tax becomes a more intractable problem for the Gillard government every day.

Negotiations and campaigns with business leaders, households and the Greens become more complex and more contradictory with every meeting and every compromise or concession to any of the groups involved.

Against a background of a weakened minority government, forced to appease its Greens partners to have any chance of meeting Julia Gillard’s deadline of a carbon tax by July 1 next year, industry has become emboldened and is beginning to speak out.

There have been warnings of job losses in the coal and steel industries, oil refining is a threatened species under a carbon tax, marginal manufacturing ventures face a final cost hit and now liquefied natural gas is declaring its objections.

LNG’s objections are also raising the fundamental issues of whether Australia needs to or can afford to “go it alone” on a carbon tax and whether such a tax is designed to cut global greenhouse gas emissions or just redistribute and recycle wealth through tax. (source)

So we will have the Greens pulling one way, and industry (and common sense) pulling the other, with Labor stuck in the middle. There are so many contradictions in Labor’s argument for this tax that I have lost count. “It will help the climate”: no it won’t. “It needs to change behaviour”: but it won’t if there’s compensation. “It’s in the ‘national interest'”: if ‘national interest’ means flushing our economy down the pan for no purpose whatsoever while our competitors surge ahead unrestrained. Odd definition of ‘national interest’, that one…


  1. I think their main motivation is “Look! We’re doing something about the climate!”. Sadly, they may as well say they’re attempting to put out a building fire with a water pistol.

    People aren’t as dumb as the government think they are; people want to know exactly what their money is doing for the country, and the government are selling snake oil.


    Stop breathing – When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

    Don’t drive – We all know how bad driving is

    Don’t live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity – Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

    Don’t wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

    Quit school – Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

    Eat meat raw – Whether you’re using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

    Turn off this monitor and computer – You hypocrite.

    Don’t use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

    Stop exercising – Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

    Die – Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you’re not here!


    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Turn off this monitor and computer – You hypocrite.


      Viva la resistance…

    • rukidding says:

      Can I offset my current emissions against the ones I won’t emit when I am not here.:-)

  3. I see on the front page of today’s Financial Review:

    “BHP Billiton has been privately lobbying the federal government to exclude a large part of its coal operations from the impact of a carbon price, despite publicly advocating putting a price on carbon.”

    So … what grubby little deals has the grubby little turd Kloppers been stitching up with these grubby sh!ts in Canberra, I wonder?

    • Well, that will upset the pro-tax supporters. They often trot Marcus Kloppers out as the poster-boy for CEO’s who ‘get it’.

      I’ve always said ‘let’s wait and see what deal he has cut’.

  4. Confusious says:

    There is one big ommision to the Carbon Dioxide emissions Julia and Brown Bob forgot about, namely volcanoes who are belching the stuff. But that is far too complex thing for the brainwashed and blinded followers of these clowns.
    Apart from that, what about the cows, sheep, horses, goats and all the other herbivores, wild and domesticated? I challenge Professor Garnaut to develop and implement at once tax system for these rowdy poluters! Whilst busy with that he could design a climate-change-o-meter (CCOM) inserted into the rectum and connected via NBN network to Canberra. Which bring me to the latest and probably biggest of the Climate Change Global Warming culprits, namely the politicians. Julia and Bob could do with the Garnaut’s CCOMs inserted into their orifices………………… Garnaut can self insert few too!

    • Baldrick says:

      I’m more than happy to drive my car to an anti-carbon dioxide tax rally – but I hope these wombats from Get-Up don’t dare drive their cars. Perhaps they could push-bike, but their extra panting will only put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Hmmmm … maybe they could walk …. no, same result ….
      Okay, I agree … insert a CCOM into their rectum and add the additional payments to their carbon dioxide tax bill.

      • The Loaded Dog says:

        “but I hope these wombats from Get-Up don’t dare drive their cars.”

        You can guarantee they will have. The excuse is that it’s for a good cause – saving the planet – and sacrifices have to be made.

        Hypocritical, nauseating…..tossers…

        Check this out for a laugh on this very point:-

  5. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    The carbon tax becomes a more intractable problem for the Gillard government every day.

    There is one fundamental reason for this. The government’s case has relied on the IPCC, which in turn relied heavily on computer model-based predictions, which, in turn, underpin the IPCC’s mantra that Co2 emissions from human activity are causing catastrophic global warming.

    But there is a big problem with all this, namely the real-world observational data on climate. The real-world data are contradicting all the ominous model-based predictions of the IPCC. The model-based predictions are wrong, based on the real-world data. It’s as simple as that.

    The satellite-based temperature of the lower atmosphere between 1979 and March 2011 demonstrates that temperature is as cool as it was in 1980, and that the global warming of the last century has been reversed. All this has happened despite the level of atmospheric Co2 significantly rising.

    In addition, the climate models are wrong on hurricane activity, sea-level rises, sea-ice extent in the Arctic, destruction to coral reefs, glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro, etc etc etc.

    So, should the government continue to base its climate policies on “garbage-in” computer climate models (not science) or is it time the government began to rely on the actual real-world data (the science) which is indisputable… and it demonstrates that human activity is not causing catastrophic global warming?

    And this being the case, then why the need to reduce Co2 emissions, and why the need to introduce a carbon tax?

  6. All this reminds me of the depths of the farce of the INFAMOUS HEWSON BIRTHDAY CAKE GST interview…….

    And….can I be compensated for my emissions……ah thats better….2 bucks please govt….he he

%d bloggers like this: