Delusional: Swan thinks "tide will turn" for carbon tax

Get his face off my monitor

In his dreams. The more people find out about the tax, and the fact that it will increase the price of everything for no benefit to the climate whatsoever, whether locally or globally, the more people will harden their opposition to it. But apparently not Wayne Swan, who believes (as usual) that it’s only a matter of time before the unwashed electorate come round to the political elite’s way of thinking:

Yesterday, as the Opposition Leader continued to attack the carbon tax, Mr Swan said he expected Labor’s stock to improve once the details of the tax were finalised in coming months.

“At the end of the day our job – we deal with some very tough economic and political issues,” he said in an interview with The Australian.

“There’s no way but just to keep going and get them done and wear it in the interim.”

He said there was “no other way” to deliver a carbon tax than that being pursued.

“We understand that we’ll cop stuff along the way because of that,” the Treasurer said.

“But there’s no alternative to it. The alternative to it is to do nothing. That’s terribly contrary to the country’s interests in the long term.” (source)

It’s actually quite funny (or it would be if it wasn’t so serious) to watch a politician twisting in the wind, trying to justify the unjustifiable. Maybe the big emitters will get together and agree a global deal in five or ten years time, in which case, Australia can join in then. There is nothing about the carbon tax that is in the country’s interests, whether short term or long term, unless there is global action. However, the longer that global action is delayed, the weaker the case for action will be, as temperatures and sea levels fail to rise as predicted, and people start asking “Is this Y2K all over again?”


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    “But there’s no alternative to it. The alternative to it is to do nothing….”

    Errr, yes…that’s right Wayniepooh….do nothing…..and here we were thinking you were a self destructive fool.

    “….That’s terribly contrary to the country’s interests in the long term.”

    Oh dear….

    and you were doing so well…..

  2. I can’t see their ‘stock’ improving unless they dump their co2 taxes and asylum seekers policies. But if they do dump them, they’ll just look weak and useless. I don’t see a way out for Labor, and increasingly, I suspect neither do they. Much more likely is an independent walk-out or a by-election by someone who is fed up.

    • I don’t think he was talking about their political stocks, I think he was talking about all their investments in carbon trading, sequestration, solar panel manufacture/research/installation and windmill manufacturing companies.

      Hell, if I’d known eight months ago that all Julia’s pre-election announcements were total lies, I’d probably have thrown a few dollars that way too, knowing that I’d cash in when she finally came clean and said we were going to have this tax, no matter how much the Australian people don’t want it.

  3. gyptis444 says:

    The gross incompetence of Gillard’s Gang knows no bounds! If there were olympic gold medals for incompetence, Gillard’s Gang would win by miles.
    Along with the rest of the lunatics running the asylum Swan is clearly delusional.
    At least federal Labor pollies have some time before the next election to consider their post-political careers.

  4. This is rather like going to be executed. That one is going to die soon isn’t really a pleasant thought..

    Now Swan is going to tell us the detail, like whether it’s the guillotine or the chair. Oh, well.. that makes it all ok, then.

    I’ll give him credit for realising that many don’t like it. Some political boneheads can’t even fathom that.

  5. In August last year under “Give me a Break Julia” (Climate Change) I asked for a response to this email from her office I’m still waiting.

    Now it appears that after the interview with KOB the Citizen’s Assembly is crap! Can you please explain something bugging me and my colleagues.
    -How are you going to achieve connecting the various renewables to the grid?
    -How will the different costs of each method be calculated with respect to the Energy Companies Billing Consumers?
    -Some of the renewable energy proposals are still just that, (a proposal)!
    – Once you start supplying energy from Solar Collectors to the grid will consumers be equally compensated for the power they supply back into the grid from their personal solar panels?

    It is an absolute joke the disparity at present!

    It seems the Greens are now pushing for all the above to happen quickly!

  6. My email to the 7.30 Report in July 2008
    The Human Cost of Climate Change reaches further than Garnaut
    14/07/2008 9:03 PM
    Re: Brown 8/7/08 “It’s just an excuse by the coal industry to sell more coal overseas to the major polluters”.

    When will the people who want to destroy the coal industry overnight see the human side to the industry. 90% of Victoria’s Electricity is supplied by coal fired generation and thousands of people have worked their “guts out” to maintain supplies over many years long before anybody sprouted about anthropogenic causes nor were they even considered!
    Do people like Brown, Milne, Greenpeace, Garnaut, Rudd, Wong and Garrett think that places like the Latrobe Valley should just “closed down”?

    (Note: No mention of Gillard she wasn’t concerned about the Climate then)

    The number of unanswered questions and the toll of leaving them that way is a legacy of this mob, now joined by All Carbon Tax proponents, the Independants, Bandt Wilkie and Hanson Young.
    They all need to take a long hard look at themselves and CALL AN ELECTION!

  7. gyptis444 says:

    I have some questions for Gillard & Swan.

    1) Given that China is building scores of coal-fired power stations of Gigawatt capacity each year, what measurable effect, if any, will the proposed carbon tax have on atmospheric CO2 concentrations or temperature? No measurable effect for hundreds of years according to Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery.

    2) Given that the Government believes carbon to be at the root of anthropogenic global (greenhouse gas induced) warming will the Government ban Australian exports of coal to China and other nations? Will Australian coal mining be shut down?

    3) The Treasurer claims that it will only be the ‘major polluters’ who will be affected by the carbon tax. Question: How will the ‘major polluters’ recoup this cost? Answer: from consumers of course. Hence the cost of buildings, transport, food, electricity and manufacturing will increase thereby adding to the already significant cost of living. Most people would regard this as an additional TAX.

    4) The Gillard Government has been very quiet about the planned escalation of its carbon tax over time. What will be the rate of increase of the carbon tax per year?

    5) Given the findings of the IAC Review of IPCC (containing irrefutable evidence from IPCC participants attesting to political interference, bias, lack of transparency, failure to respond to critical review comments, vague statements not supported by evidence) does the Government still regard the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report as a justifiable basis for its climate change policy?

    6) In particular, the IAC found that Working Group III of the IPCC (concerned with mitigation of climate change) used economic models based on many assumptions and uncertainties. (The inference is that WGIII’s projections are useless.) In this context it is relevant to ask what assumptions have been made by Treasury in its modelling of carbon tax? Further, how many of those assumptions have been met in practice? How realistic are those assumptions? What effect will the Government’s proposed carbon tax and ETS have on industry, inflation, and unemployment?

    7) Due diligence would dictate that the Government should carefully consider the economic performance indicators (GDP, inflation, unemployment, national debt, foreign exchange reserves) of those nations which have implemented ETS in any form. Pre- and post-implementation periods should be compared with those nations which have not implemented any form of ETS and the results (analysed by competent economists with the assistance of professional statisticians) should be made public in the interests of transparency. Has such analysis been performed? If not when will it be done?

    8) The Gillard Government is now spinning rhetoric about ‘generous compensation to low and middle income households’. What thresholds will be used to define ‘low and middle incomes’. What levels of compensation will apply?

    9) If, as is claimed, ‘climate science is settled’ why has NASA very recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the construction and attempted launching of a satellite specifically designed ‘to clarify the role of aerosols in the climate system’? Could it be because an Israeli scientist named Shaviv has proved that IPCC has grossly overestimated climate sensitivity in its erroneous predictions of the effects of volcanic eruptions?

    10) In view of the fact that the European ETS has been ineffective in limiting atmospheric CO2 concentrations and has facilitated widespread and large scale fraud, what evidence is there that the same problems will not beset an Australian ETS? How ill this scheme be regulated and what will be the cost of regulating this scheme?

    11) Given that China, India, Russia, Canada, Japan, France and the USA have either rejected or deferred ETS as a means of limiting CO2 emissions, why is Australia adopting this irrational policy?

    12) China’s policy is far more rational than that proposed by the current Australian Government. China is increasing the proportion of power generation by nuclear reactors; it is also striving for more efficient use of energy in addition to addressing environmental concerns (land use, planting of trees, better public transport etc.) (Given that Ms Gillard has ruled out nuclear energy, how does the Government propose to increase the proportion of ‘clean energy’ on a scale which will meet Australian domestic and commercial needs into the future and how long will it take to achieve this? While successive Australian Governments have done very little to increase the proportion of clean energy available to consumers, by contrast France now has 80% of its power supplied by nuclear reactors without any significant safety problems. Notwithstanding Europe’s ETS, France is so far the only European nation to have achieved this. It is paradoxical that the same people who vociferously bemoan CO2 emissions have, by their influence, prevented nuclear power generation in Australia.

    13) What proportion of the money spent by consumers on petrol, diesel and other hydrocarbon fuels is already being harvested by the Australian Government? What has the Government done with this revenue?

    14) How much Australian taxpayers’ money has been pledged to the UNEP? (A figure of some $499 million has been suggested). How much Australian taxpayers’ money has been committed to the UNEP to date? What schedule of payments to the UNEP has been signed by the Australian Government?

    • These are great questions – but don’t expect an answer from the government anytime soon.

      • Banana says:

        Yeah, or dont expect our pathetic excuse for journalists to ask these questions either. They may actually give the public some information relevant to the issue.

  8. gyptis444 says:

    Rational behaviour and transparency are alien concepts to Gillard & co. I have already sent these questions to the pollies and have not received any sensible answers. That should not preclude others from raising these issues anywhere, anytime to inform fellow Australians of the reckless lack of due diligence on the part of the Gillard Gang.

    • Banana says:

      gyptis, I have to say ‘bravo!’
      Your points are the most clear and concise I have seen on this issue from just about anyone.
      Unfortunately, I dont think the Govt is worried about the science etc as they just want a new tax and they dont care how they get it.
      Facts & figures just get in the way of their agenda.

  9. Another Simon says:

    You guys should all get solar before the rebates are reduced and they start cutting back the buyback rate like NSW has already done (from 60c per kwh to just 20c when they realised it would bankrupt the state)

    I spent just over $11k on mine. I compared buying shares, paying down my house loan and investing in Solar. Solar won hands down on almost every scenario I tested. I try not to use the power I generate for myself. I run the most power hungry stuff at night wherever possible and export as much as I can back to the grid. Why use my own power and lose 66c per kwh I consume when I can sell it to the government then buy it back late at night for a piffling 16c per kwh?

    Interestingly there are 2 options being used across the states and territories for the grid feed in payments. There is net-feed-in like here in Victoria, where you are only paid for the EXCESS energy you produce, which is why I try not to use power during the day. NSW and others have a gross-feed-in tariff, where you are paid for EVERYTHING you produce, no matter how much energy you use yourself.

    I would prefer the gross feed in was applicable to me, I’d be able to get the same benefit without rearranging my life one bit. But the net feed in tariff makes me far more energy conscious. I used to pay 20c per kwh during the day for power, now it is “costing” me 66c if the sun is shining. So I take less from the grid in peak times and more in the low demand times. I figure this HAS to be the better environmental option. Why the Greens support the gross feed in option is beyond me . . . . But it IS consistent with their opposition for nuclear and hydro. Which also is beyond my understanding . . . .

    If you aren’t into feed in tariffs and kwh, here is a simple analogy for you. Imagine that instead of a solar program, the government is helping people grow apples. They will help you buy the tree (they will pay around 60% of the cost of a small tree, about 50% of a medium tree, and about 30% of a large tree) and they will buy any uneaten apples from you also.

    On a good day, my tree will grow around 20 apples. I usually like to eat about 8 apples a day (4 during the day, 4 over night.) So that means I have 12 to sell to the government. But how it works is that I sell 16 to them at the end of the day, for 66c each, then overnight I purchase 4 back from them at only 16c each. Good scam or what? The buyback rate of 16c will of course change overtime as this is the energy price from my supplier but 60 of the 66c comes from the government and has been guaranteed for the next 15 years.

    Lets take another example of a tree that only grows 6 apples per day. I eat 4 during the day and sell 2 for $1.32 at the end of the day. Then I buy 4 back overnight for 64 cents in total. So I am eating more apples each day than my tree can actually grow. Yet I am still getting free apples and I’m 68 cents better off as well. Killer deal, yes?

    Make sure you check the details for your state/territory regarding feed in tariffs as they aren’t all the same. But the rebate for the system cost is a federal initiative and everyone gets the same deal there. Currently you get paid 5 times the normal rebate for the first 1.5kw of your system. It’s one for one after that. In practice this means the govt will kick in around $5000 for a 1.5kw system, but if you get a 3kw system you will only get another $1000 in rebates.

    If you don’t have much money and want cheap or free power, go for the 1.5kw system. Some companies are offering these on payments plans too if you can’t find the cash upfront. If you want to make an investment and actually earn a decent chunk of money, go for a 3kw system or bigger. But do it soon if you are going to, the rebate multiplier for the first 1.5kw of any system will reduce from 5 to 4 as of July 1st, and will be reduced again by 1 for the next 4 years until it’s down to 1 to 1. At this point you will only get $1000 in rebates for a 1.5kw system and $2000 for a 3kw system.

    The rebates are in the form of RECS (Renewable Energy Certificates) which you can sell, hang on to, or assign to your solar installation company in return for a discounted price. The price of RECS varies, most companies will pay somewhere in the $30 -$40 range when calculating the discounts. You should do your own research to determine the best option. I believe most people do as I did and assign them to the solar installation company in return for a discount.

    Disclaimer: I hate greenies. I think they are irrational and have odd ideas about how to improve the environment and society. I believe climate change is NATURAL and not happening at any kind of crazy rate compared to other times in history. I believe humans contribute to climate change but not a significant amount. I invested in solar to MAKE MONEY and minimise the impact of ETS/carbon tax stupidity the government is trying to inflict on us. I did NOT install solar because I want to “save the planet.” It’s been doing fine this last 4.5 billion years without our help, I’m sure it will survive a few billion more.

  10. Confusious says:

    Fish face at it again! Shows what lifelong union affiliation does to immature brain….!

  11. Audrey says:

    Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh………………..Why is it so bloody hard to get a simple answer to a simple question from these bloody idiots? (By idiots I mean ALL members of the Gillard/Brown/Windsor/Oakshott Government )

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      They’re automatons. Programmed only one way – LEFT. Nothing you say to them computes…

  12. Relax. Just wait until the next election. It is virtually impossible to vote for someone who is pushing for a tax increase. It is the same as voting directly for a tax increase. No matter how much the public talks about a tax increase and how much it is needed, when voting time comes almost no one will actualy put an X beside the name of the person pushing for the tax. They will vote for the no-tax person at the last minute. This is a dead issue. Gillard will be toast.

  13. Yeah, right; global warming. An extract from BOM’s weather zone this morning. Who said something about a mild winter?
    “It may end up being Melbourne’s longest streak of below 16 degree days in May for 26 years”.

    Snowy blast for TAS, VIC and NSW
    Robert Wood, Monday May 9, 2011 – 17:56 EST
    The strongest push of cold air this season will make its way across southeast Australia this week, with snow levels lowering to near 800 metres and 15-30cm of snowfall possible for Victorian Alpine Regions.

    The cold front will be unusually powerful for late Autumn, with very cold air expected to be transported up from the Southern Ocean into Victoria and Tasmania, along with strong icy winds.

    Though the Alps have seen snow this early before, the amount and spread of the snowfall may suprise locals and make for a positive start to the ski season for some resorts. Light snow or flurries may be seen as far north as the Central Tablelands of NSW on Wednesday night.

    The coldest air will move over VIC from late Tuesday into Wednesday, causing temperatures to plummet to the coldest levels since August with Melbourne struggling to reach 14 degrees. It may end up being Melbourne’s longest streak of below 16 degree days in May for 26 years.

    The Alpine regions will see more widespread snow, with southern Victorian ski-fields likely to witness the heaviest snowfalls so far this season.

    – Weatherzone

    © Weatherzone 2011

%d bloggers like this: