BALANCED: Rudd's enormous new tax on carbon pollution not enough for greedy Greens party

ruddclimatechange Before you listen to Greens Party hysteria about the Rudd government’s announcement about reducing carbon pollution not being enough, consider this line from the government’s plan:

“The sale of (carbon polluting) permits will raise $11.5 billion for the Australian Government in 2010/11.”

That’s a big chunk of change. A massive new tax on Australian industry and energy production. Greens party propagandists say it’s “only 5%” referring to the government’s target for carbon pollution cuts. Forget that. It’s an $11.5 billion new tax on pollution. There’s never been anything like it in Australian history. It creates a big financial incentive to reduce carbon emissions, the objective of the cap and trade system.

And for those all chubbed-up over targets, Samantha Maiden explains:

Echoing the Prime Minister’s climate change advisor Ross Garnaut’s recent intervention in the debate, the Government will argue the cut is equivalent to a 27-34 per cent cut below 2000 levels when you factor in a population growth of 45 per cent between 1990 and 2020.

There you go. Change you can believe in. But the target is a small issue, however much it is the preoccupation of sandal-wearers and weird scientists, because it will continue to be largely irrelevant until every country embraces a similar tax on carbon pollution. The government rightly argues that technology and other jurisdictions coming on board will no doubt make further reductions in carbon pollution possible in the future.

They appear to have got the balance right.

The public policy issue is that from 2010 a massive new tax on pollution will be in place. The fact that the Greens party wanted a much higher tax that could have gutted an already strained economy in the midst of a possible recession, the fact the Liberals seem set to support the government’s proposal on a bi-partisan basis confirms that balance.

The fact that it will be spent on worthy pursuits and compensation to help the worse off is welcome but the government warns the cost of living will increase directly by 1.1 per cent across the economy. The government has put a lot of thought into compensation and they seem to have covered all contingencies. They’ll be hoping so. The massive new tax on pollution starts just before an expected federal election.

VEXNEWS has one issue though. We don’t think a cut in fuel tax is a good idea. We think it ought to be the highest priority of the democracies around the world to permanently reduce our dependence on oil imported from the world’s worst regimes, and that’s pretty much all of it. The price of oil will go up and down depending on fundamentals in the economy and speculation about its direction. We need to build a world where oil is cheaper than water because we’ve walked away from using it, a dirty source of energy mainly controlled by governments with contempt for our way of life who for the most part end up like more repressive versions of Nauru. See we agree with mung-bean eaters about something.



Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “BALANCED: Rudd's enormous new tax on carbon pollution not enough for greedy Greens party

  1. Christ on a Bike

    Never mind all that. Did you see the norks on the mad leftie sheila who was screaming at Rudd during his Press Club speech? Hubba hubba!

  2. Amused

    “Did you see the norks on the mad leftie sheila ”

    I have to admit I did. They were a lot more interesting than Rudd droning on.

  3. notagreen

    Balanced my ar$e. I hope you morons are looking forward to warmer summers and more desalination plants. Global warming is a fact that many of the not-for-profit scientists agree on. And a 5% target till 2020 will leave the government with another 55% reduction by 2050 (or so they say). I’m not a rocket scientist but I’m not stupid either. Rudd’s revolution phrase is starting to get long in the tooth. Roll on the next election…

  4. Fatty Doyle

    Indeed that young lass has fantastic cans, they definitely got Little Fatty to stand up.
    Maybe she could be my ‘Green’ advisor in my new important vice regal role?
    Hooley dooley!!!!

  5. Hmmm

    Let the seas rise! Then we can get over this drought and water restrictions.

  6. centaur_007

    Far more important to introduce ETS than the actual targets. Could have left the door open for 20% and could have comfortably pushed 7.5% but it’s a good start. Won’t lose any votes to Libs, a tad of primary to Greens but it should come back in 2PP. Only real seat under threat would be Sydney- Plibersek’s but the Greens need to make up some 5000 votes to be a chance

  7. Anonymous

    The left are mad. If Australia cuts its carbon emissions to zero (back to pre-non aboriginal settlement), China’s growth would mean it would make up for Australia’s zero carbon emission in 9 months.

    Shows how pointless anything Australia does is in the big picture.

  8. Vivienne

    When are we having a public debate on immigration and population growth? They are factoring in a population growth of 45 per cent between 1990 and 2020. Isn’t time we realised that our high and artificially produced population growth rate is prohibiting our ability to reduce carbon emissions? Just because we have always had a heavy immigration program it doesn’t mean it has to continue! Our high population growth rate could easily be avoided by halting our skilled immigration program. When is the debate starting?

  9. Anonymous

    Less population less carbon, makes sense.

  10. Anonymous

    Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every… May-be the greens should ask them to cut their emissions

  11. McPerton

    My Dear Fatty, the Dearest of Dear Fatties,

    I too was particularly impressed by the attributes of the vocal female protestor, but I do fear that her human rights have been violated by the decision to limit carbon reduction to 5%. After all, the right to a 20% carbon reduction is enshrined in the ICCPR of 1948.

    I suggest that I run a pro bono case on her behalf in HREOC and the UNHRC. Of course, I would need a chambers for such a purpose, and your new mayoral chambers are just the place to accommodate a fine young lady such as this. Of course, the chambers could also be provided on a pro bono basis.

  12. Anon

    Little Kevvie has betrayed Working Families with this ETS crap.

    It WILL cost jobs and Working Families WILL suffer and there will be NO tangible benefit for the environment.

    Shame on the AWU for turning its back on its own members.

  13. Anon

    Mr Rudd really is trying very hard to be John Howard – light.

  14. David Agnew

    The best way to stop global warming and prevent the release of tons of destructive hot air is to gag Bob Brown

  15. inga ping

    surely my cans are better!

  16. anon

    Inga Binga NO they are not, they are shrivelled, they sag and droop and they are lop sided.
    Generally Inga you are as ugly as a hat full of arseholes!

  17. Inga Binga

    I bet all you boys would like a peak up my skirt?
    Drop by to my recently renovated Bayside Outhouse and you’ll get your Christmas wish and see what old soft Sav can’t help!

  18. Anonymous

    According to a Canadian associate of mine former (ha, ha, ha!) Councillor from Banyule Dean Sherriff is forming “an investment vehicle” for “investment in Australian media equities”. An expression of interest package, as it is called, was sent to HSBC in Canada. If this is true and he gets a stake in something like Star, oh my goodness: you haven’t seen biased coverage yet people!
    ASIC should stop him.

  19. Anon

    John Howard and all conservatives are delighted with Rudds 5%… couldn’t have done it better themselves – really.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s