Vote online for carbon tax and Prof Tim Flannery

Two polls running just now;
The Age; (added Saturday8am) This poll is closed now – 89% against a carbon tax.

and
The Australian
rare chance to have your say counted. Still running Saturday with 3062 total votes, only 14.97% in favour of Prof Tim Flannery as CCC.

Both polls have surprising large percentages against what the Govt wants to do. Must be some sort of right wing plot.

18 comments to Vote online for carbon tax and Prof Tim Flannery

  • val majkus

    Jo Nova has a post up on this joannenova.com.au/2011/02/do-you-want-a-carbon-tax-poll-on-today-at-the-age/#comments
    and I’ve left this message

    I’m afraid the Govt and the Climate Change Commission with Flannery as the Commissioner have turned into a propoganda organisation
    I’ve lived in a Communistic country and quite frankly the current media with a few exceptions are a propoganda machine
    What hope do the populace have fed with the AGW propoganda through the ABC (publicly funded) and other stations
    It’s a bit sad when the publically funded broadcaster in a democratic country simply follows the Govt line (or is it a matter of group think)
    and where’s journalistic ethics (particularly investigative) end up in all this
    At the foot of the dungheap – sad isn’t it

  • pattoh

    The Federal Government has put together “the Climate Wiggles”.

    Now be good little watermellons & dance!

  • Chuck

    I think its safe to say that the Age poll had a few ‘unfavourable’ links.

  • val majkus

    Prof Carter has an article in Quadrant Online today www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science
    well worth a read
    (final para)
    In the interest of good governance and sound environmental stewardship, I urge readers to reject this costly, inefficient, ineffectual, inequitable and unnecessary tax.

  • Harry Dindoo

    Call it’s proper name it’s “AIR TAX”.
    The next tax will be GRAVITY TAX

  • James

    It’s a damn tax and nothing else. Utter nonsense the public wont have a bar of it and Labor are finished if the introduce it. Our jobs and resources go to countries who couldn’t care less while we shoot ourselves in the foot. Australai can pollute all day it makes not difference-we don’t anyway. I am not fooled by per capita numbers and you shouldn’t be either. The volume of pollution is what counts and that comes from heavily populated industrial countries not Australia per capita is an atempt to suck us in.
    We have abundant emergy and we should use it. We have standards the third world does not and neither do many heavy pollution countries when we export our raw materials and jobs they finish up with major polluters who are causing the damage. They have lower standards than we do. We should look after ourselves and stop this tax. Labor will be voted out if they go ahead. This tax wont fly and nothing can sell it to us because it an expensive and stupid mistake.

  • Robert Stiglbauer

    In what Universe does it make any sense, to impose a tax on our emmissions, in order to reduce these by 5%.
    To placate the masses most will be compensated, a simple re-distribution of wealth. At the same time the coal industry is assured by treasury modeling etc, that their industry will double. This means that we will export double the amount of coal to countries that will then burn twice as much coal as today, doubling the amount of green house emmission.
    So whilst we all suffer the extra tax burden, compensation or not, at the very least there will be some inflationary pressure, raising interest rates, someone is burning our coal, emmitting Co2, at twice the current rate.
    I am all in favour of saving the planet and our way of life, but fail to understand the reasoning and am dissapointed by the sheer hypochracy displayed by those charged with running the country. The simple equation above is only one example of what is going to happen. Many busineses will simply shut down or re-locate. Energy retailers are all in favour of the tax. We must keep in mind that these organisations do not actually make any electricity or anything else. They are simply a billing centre. If locked into one of their contracts, we are not immune to increased charges, as any rises in the throughput charges to them, can legally be passed onto us.
    Amazed and absolutely Livid
    Robert Stiglbauer

  • John D

    This MP may go down as the most hated MP in Australian History….She said to the Australian public and looking down the camera lens that there will be NO carbon tax is she was elected. People are NOT stupid and they have long memories. Now look at almost one year on from gaining office and we see the CARBON TAX on her desk and she is so proud of it. What amazes me is she lied to the voting public and there are people that still support her… YOU ARE A LIAR GILLARD and I for one are so sick of seeing you treat us like little children telling US what is best for US and this country… Lets just put it to a vote like a early election… and we will show you what is best for you.

  • Sharon k

    John D….well said mate. This MP is bad, labor is bad then to make things even more of a worry you have the stupid greens in the mix. Always wonder why greens ministers don’t catch the bus to their meetings or whatever or car pool to save us and do their part. But no they are driven in public funded large cars. Does not sound right to me.

  • David

    It apears that if we dont have an election we may have a civil war, people are feeling strongly about being lied to and yet another tax introducing more complexity in our everyday lives.

  • KGC

    How tragic that we are being governed by the most patronising, arrogant and incompetent bunch of amateurs.
    And now we have another disaster in the making – hope we can stop the legislation of the carbon tax before we have a repeat of previous fiascos like education revolution, insulation program, giving away the stimulus money to people residing and spending it in NZ and other places, providing the biggest growing economies – India and China (being currently the biggest polluter, at least in our region) with huge financial aid (!) $20.5 million and 41.1 million respectively in 2009-10, etc.
    Whilst climate change needs to be addressed regardless of who and/or what is responsible for it, the cost of any action needs to be measured against the realistic gain. The real test for any government is efficient management and implementation of all worthy and necessary proposals – all are worthless (yet often very costly) if the system and its people are unable to deliver and ensure proper implementation.
    Vague information, incomplete calculations and financial predictions, misleading modelling will not convince anybody willing to thoroughly examine issue at hand but sadly would cost us all very dearly with increased prices, loss of jobs, income and security, closure of businesses, more defaults on loans – all for a tiny (if any) gain on a global scale. Forget about the politics of it all – there is no way around the simple mathematic and economic reality and it does not look good. We are risking big pain, for minimal gain.
    Watch Question Time and you will have to see that this government does not answer any question presented to them in the Parliament – they attack, talk about everything else, go round and round in circles leaving every single question they do not feel comfortable with unanswered. What a way to govern… What a way to be governed… Gone is the responsibility, accountability to and respect for all of us. It is embarrassing that we let them get away with it.

  • Les H

    Gillard claims the top 500 pulluters are polluting for free. What the hell does the E.P.A do and why should everyone else who is working pay, to support those who are too proud to work. We don’t want handouts, we just want to keep what we have earned. To the Labor Greens party – Go Away and leave us alone. Call an election now

  • RichardC

    I have never seen Australia so polarised by a political party in all my 68 years.
    I believe an election on the subject of a CO2 tax would defuse the situation. The sooner the better.

  • Lidia

    The power industry has stated that prices for electricity will rise faster without a carbon tax than with it as they need to make decisions in an environment where over 100 nations have signed up to carbon emission reductions. The alternative is a greater and bigger tax grab from revenue to pay polluters and a $70 billion expenditure cut by the coalition.

  • Graeme Inkster

    Lidia Says:
    Yes, over 100 nations have “signed up” but it is just a formality and an expression of good will. Much like Hitler who said (of Chamberlain) “this nice old man wanted a piece of paper, so I gave him one”. And we know how long that stopped Hitler doing what he wanted to do.

    It looks like 85% of the World’s economy is NOT going to have a carbon tax or emissions trading. Not Canada, USA, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, India, South (and the rest of) Africa, Brazil etc.

    Then there are most of the remaining countries (Europe, NZ & Australia?) who will NOT be reducing their emissions but buying “carbon credits” from Russia and other countries who have an economy that has declined; e.g. recently so many Greek companies tried to sell their unwanted “carbon credits” that they forced the price in Europe down.

    AT least they were genuine certificates (as far as we know) rather that the fraudulent ones estimated at between 50 & 90% of those traded in Europe.

    If the electricity generators want to cut emissions, they have 3 choices
    1. Go nuclear. Cost up 50%. Emissions down 30%. (Last restricted by need to keep grid stable).
    2. Go for gas. Costs up 55-60%. Emissions down 44%.
    3. Up-grade coal stations (switch to black coal, build new furnaces/boilers to be ‘super critical’ .
    Costs up ??? (probably less than above. Emissions down 20%

    Wind turbines cannot deliver base load power. If we “replaced” all our coal fired stations with an equivalent capacity of wind turbines, we couldn’t reduce emissions much more than about 9%. The cost wouldn’t go up that much (15-20%) because the turbines would not produce more than 15% of our electricity (but that saving is reduced by running ‘backup’ coal stations to cover the gaps in delivery).

    Since the Greens are against anything that works, we will continue using coal fired stations and emitting. So our emissions will stay the same, but the cost of electricity will go up 15-20% (depending on the cost of those overseas “credits”).

    So you can see why people say that the carbon tax won’t do any good. Just force up prices and, of course, Government tax revenues.

  • Susan

    Australia Doesn’t seem to be a democracy any more. It is now governed by the media (ie Murdoch and Packer) and big mining companies, poker machine companies and other lobby groups, including the Australian Christian Lobby, in fact anyone with enough money, that certainly don’t represent me.

    A carbon tax is good because it will tax the rich, not the poor.

    Do we really want short term gains at the expense of the environment and the planet? What do we want for the future of our grandchildren?

    Are political parties listening to the people or to powerful lobby groups? God, I hope we don’t go down the American path.

    Regards

  • Graeme Inkster

    Susan,
    the Government is weak and thus swayed by lobbyists. You forget the biggest group of all, those employed by the State. You can see that operating in Europe, where the wishes of the public are being ignored by unelected officials in the EU.

    And if you think a carbon tax will be paid by the rich, then you are mistaken. Look at the UK, who are the leading Greenies? Try the PM and his father-in-law is making $50,000 a week from wind turbines. Even more if they don’t operate as turbine owners are paid much more not to generate electricity (that’s because they all work (roughly) at the same time and can overload the Grid). Lord Rothschild, Lord Goldsmith, the Hon. Jonathon Porrit, Lord Nurse, Sir David King etc.

    Coal fired power costs $42 a MWh, wind costs about $140 for the same amount (and the payment for NOT generating can be as high as $990) so any significant amount of wind (or more expensive again solar power) is going to push up the price of electricity.

    Here in SA it has just been announced that electricity will go up 8% because of the rush into PV solar panels before tomorrow. That’s because the pollies decided to “give” people with solar panels $440 a MWh for the amount they generated when the price paid was around $170. (I say “give” as the money came from the electricity suppliers so guess what – they pushed up the price to everybody. In the past 7 years I have seen the cost of a unit of electricity nearly double).

    So all those who could find a spare $5 – 8,000 are laughing. Do you really think that they are the poor?

    If the carbon tax comes in prepare to pay more for practically everything – not immediately but after the election as the various ramifications come home. Take farmers (these are “exempt” ? ) except they will have to pay more for fertilizer, biological treatments, and the “exempt” fuel because it has to get to them. That means higher prices at the farm gate. Extra costs to get to market, extra costs for the wholesaler and the supermarket (think of their power bills alone). Who will feel the effect more, those who spend 10% of their disposable income on food or those who spend 40%.

    As for the “benefit” for the environment read the small print; Australia’s emissions are expected to go UP 16% by 2020. Even (an equivalent) carbon tax of $131 is only expected to drop Australia’s emission in 2050 by 6%. That’s 0.08% of current emissions.

  • Graeme Inkster

    If we are going to talk about the rich, how about Dr. James Hansen?
    Under the terms of contract governing his salary, Hansen is forbidden from privately benefiting from public office and from taking money for activities related to his taxpayer funded employment, YET;

    A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation – Hansen’s cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen only reported “more than $5,000″.
    2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000
    the Sophie Prize for his “political activism,” worth $100,000.
    Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of environmental organizations
    a $15,000 gift by the W.J. Clinton Foundation
    $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute
    in-kind travel expenses: $59,750 for travel in 2010 alone, $26k, $18k and $7k apparently first-class travel to Australia, 
Japan and Norway, respectively for he and his wife – he reports reimbursed travel expenses: $59,750 for travel in 2010 also, 
$26k, $18k and $7k for travel to Australia,
Japan and Norway, respectively for he and his wife.

    Documents show that in a period of five years, Hansen earned outside income between $1.47 million and $2.67 million, in addition to his basic salary as a government employee of $180,000. The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups..

    The poor man.

Leave a Reply