Letters to MP’s opposing a Carbon Tax

I have just faxed the following one page letter to the 20 Labor MP’s on the smallest majorities, plus eight relevant cabinet level people. I intend to follow this up with a series over the next two weeks – each dealing mainly with one aspect of the case against a carbon tax.

Everybody who opposes the Carbon Tax should write to or contact MP’s – we have few methods available to make our views heard.

Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax

You know that Prime Minister Gillard went to the last election saying there would be ‘‘no carbon tax under the government I lead’’.

You know also that The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last August that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.

Obviously these astute statements helped save your Labor Government from defeat last year – so voters out here know there is clearly no mandate for the carbon tax.

Do you know that Australian carbon dioxide emissions are less than 1.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions ?

So it is crystal clear that your Green-Labor Government could dismantle the Australian economy back to Stone Age levels – and the world could not measure the circa 1% change in global carbon dioxide emissions that would be produced by our sacrifice.

Do you know that CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing ? See www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.

Your Government should call a fresh election now and campaign on a platform to introduce a carbon tax – and then your Government could earn the mandate to introduce this colossal change to our national life.

Yours etc

8 thoughts on “Letters to MP’s opposing a Carbon Tax”

  1. So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.

    This is all pedantics.
    Fact 1.
    We are the world’s third-biggest carbon exporter
    (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia): Tonnes of CO2 currently exported by major coal and oil
    producers:
    (1) Saudi Arabia 1.365 billion;
    (2) Russia 1.05 billion;
    (3) Australia 681 million.
    Fact 2.
    Professor Tim Jackson in the 2010 Deakin Lecture points out that our carbon intensity per dollar has fallen by about one third. However, because of the growth in the global economy our carbon emissions increased by forty per cent! What has been happening globally is that emissions have been exported to countries like China, India, etc. All our imports have embedded CO2 emissions which are conveniently ignored.
    Unless we kill our coal exports and stop our imports from China ie kill our economic growth, CO2 emissions will continue to increase globally.
    This is the real flaw in the Carbon tax, the Kyoto Protocol, the Emissions Trading Scheme, the move to renewals, etc which cannot be overcome by piddling reductions to our direct CO2 emissions!

  2. It seems that in Canada the New Democrats who wanted to end energy growth and introduce cap and trade for Carbon have been defeated while the Conservatives who wanted to expand energy (eg oil sands) have won a majority in their own right. It seems all over the world electors are tossing out the AGW proponents. Send the warning to our politicians. Support a carbon tax and you will be thrown out at the next election.

  3. Warwick thanks for the reminder about writing to politicians; I’ve written lots of letters but not for the last couple of months but now I will start again
    and to start with I had a comment published today at www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/voters-abandon-julia-gillards-carbon-pricing-plan/story-fn59niix-1226049650911
    quoting:
    I wonder what does Oakshott perceive is the public good that will be achieved with this useless ‘carbon dioxide’ tax. Where’s the substantive direct evidence that a measurable amount of the late 20th century warming was caused by human carbon dioxide emissions Where’s the benefit (to Australia) of ‘going it alone’ before our major trading partners It is not in the national interest for this Govt to introduce this tax which will damage the economy and it will cost jobs and result in cost of living increases without any benefit to the national interest I know the Govt needs it for its ‘smoke and mirrors’ budget and possibly so as not to lose Greens support but surely the national interest should have priority with a Govt of whatever political persuasion

  4. Romanoz – you are correct about embedded emissions but Europe has had “emission controls” for 18 years, yet their total emissions have grown 44% by this style of accounting.
    The scheme goes
    1. bring in emission taxes (to save the Earth in some unspecified and unmeasurable way)
    2. export jobs to countries without these (e.g. China)
    3. spend on subsidies for “green energy” (e.g. the PV power generate AT NIGHT in Spain [by the light of the diesel powered moon?])
    4. spend more because of the increase in unemployment (where have all the jobs gone?)
    5. borrow more money
    6. find no real drop in emissions so go back to No.1 and start again with increased taxes.
    The Chinese like this as much as ABBA’s song Money, Money etc. They laugh all the way to the bank.

  5. Graeme a more academic view of the embedded CO2 in the exports from China, India and others can be found in this paper from Durham University.

    The UK appears to be a leading country in curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Unlike many other developed countries, it has already met its Kyoto obligations and defined ambitious, legally binding targets for the future. Recently this achievement has been called into question as it ignores rapidly changing patterns of production and international trade…
    We find that improvements from “domestic” changes in efficiency and production structure led to a 148 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions, which only partially offsets emission increases of 217 Mt from changes in the global supply chain and from growing consumer demand.

  6. another comment published today:
    www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/westpac-joins-carbon-revolt/story-fn59niix-1226050289507
    Tony Windsor I must say I’ve always been a tad suspicious of sales people. After all a sale is beneficial to the sales person so why should everything they say be believed without question. Where’s the benefit for Australia in taxing man made emissions of carbon dioxide. How can the Government think that taking away Australia’s advantage in cheap fossil fuels be in the national interest. How can costlier energy generate jobs? And what does Oakshott perceive is the public good that will be achieved? Where’s the substantive direct evidence that a measurable amount of the late 20th century warming was caused by human carbon dioxide emissions? Where’s the benefit (to Australia) of ‘going it alone’ before our major trading partners? It is not in the national interest for this Govt to introduce this tax. I know the Govt needs it for its ‘smoke and mirrors’ budget and possibly so as not to lose Greens support but surely the national interest should be the only priority with a Govt of whatever political persuasion.
    This proposed tax is not in the national interest

    and a great comment there by Ian Wilson of Perth Posted at 10:20 AM Today
    This man is really very stupid and scarily wields an extraordinary influence over Australian politics. For your education Mr Windsor, and please read this carefully, as it may stop you from sounding so dumb in future: 1) the climate has always changed, well at least for the last 3,000 million years; 2) Australia contributes c. 1.4% of global human induced CO2 emissions; 3) human induced emissions make up c. 4% of total CO2 emissions; 4) Australia’s contribution of total CO2 emissions is therefore c. 0.04%; 5) a reduction of even 10% of Australia’s emissions, which will certainly wreck our economy, will make up just 0.004% of total global CO2 emissions. . Mr Windsor, please tell us how, this will a) reduce global temperatures; and b) please tell us how that for no material change in temperature, but a certain wrecking of the Australian economy, this will cause “no harm”; lastly c) pray tell us how a tax that does not change behaviour, because it is partly designed to buy votes, will further change a climate that has always changed?

    Comment 15 of 20

    Oh, the world of climate speak where all things bad do us good

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.