Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

[Flying Binghi]

.

via Towering Q #229;

I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of posters on this forum will not be voting for the ALP come the next Federal Election. No doubt one of their reasons for doing so will be “the Carbon Tax.”

Now this is where science and politics becomes a little unclear. Are those that are opposed to the Carbon Tax, opposed because of the way it was introduced, or because they don’t believe in AGW?

If they don’t believe in AGW, then....

Towering Q, there's more then just two views on this. i've noted around the forums that there are some AGW 'beleivers' who think it is utterly piontless little ol Oz doing anything about CO2 as the big uns wont be worrying about it.


From the recent Rio global warming farce....

The leaders of Brazil, India and China have made it clear that they will not punish their citizens by stopping economic growth.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?



-----------------------------------------------------------




How goes le Pingouin and peterc005 with their search for some "good, solid and peer-reviewed science" to back up the AGW claims...






.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

'm not stressed by the Carbon Tax.

5 cents a litre * 35 litres an hour is about $1.50 an hour. Not a big deal.

Most years I fly about 120 hours, so say $200 a year.

Happy to do my bit for the environment.

That is the sort of response from these hypocrites that steams me the most. I'll just pay the money, not change my habits and feel good about it. If you want to "do your bit for the environment" then stop flying and using fossil fuels. But of course you don't want to be actually inconvenienced at all do you? Proof that this scam tax will not work.

[Captain Dart]

Didn't a certain person say in her dulcet tones,

'Theer willl be nao cairbun tex unda a guvment oi lllead...' ?

[Super Cecil]

The rain stopped this morning, it was colder. The battery in my watch stopped, the garage door was harder to close. All these things I blame on the carbon tax, you blokes were right, we'll all be rooned.

[Jabawocky]

Its working already..

Look at the temps for the next week. AGW my AR$E

Forecast for Monday
Fine, sunny. Cold morning. Light to moderate S to SW winds.

Precis: Fine, sunny. Cold morning.
City: Min 7 Max 19
Bayside: Min 8Max 18
UV Alert from 10:20 am to 1:30 pm, UV Index predicted to reach 4 [Moderate]

Tuesday Fine, sunny. Cold morning. Min 5 Max 19
Wednesday Fine, mostly sunny. Cold morning. Min 5 Max 19
Thursday Fine, partly cloudy. Min 8 Max 20
Friday Mostly fine, possible shower. Min 9 Max 20

[Towering Q]

That's not all...my car wouldn't start, the retic system developed 3 leaks overnight and the Topfield PVR has been playing up all day.

[Jabawocky]

Traffic

That is the point. In a couple of European countries where a carbon tax has been in place for well over 20 years, what has actually happened. CO2 output has actually increased.

It is a grubby illegitimate tax.

And if you think the CO2 tax adds only 5-6 cpl, WRONG. That is the direct tax on that litre. All the indirect tax components on the factory manufacturing the fuel will increase costs of production. The increased costs on delivery. The increased cost on employees along the way, will apply wage (inflationary) pressure. I am not an economist, but I can assure everyone reading this, the CO2 Tax on a litre of AVGAS will NOT result in just a 5-6cpl increase in cost over the next year. When all the hidden costs start affecting things, it will be more like double the tax.

So peterc and anyone else who thinks this is a really smart move. YOU ARE WRONG. No matter how much spin you apply.

[Flying Binghi]

.



Here we go, just to round out the IPCC critique..


What is Wrong with the IPCC with a forward by former Prime Minister John Howard.

Couple of extracts -

Donna Laframboise gets a mention on Pg 16 "...the disturbing recent discovery by journalist Donna Laframboise that two-thirds of the chapters in the AR4 were authored by teams that included at least one member of an advisory panel to a lobbying campaign run by the World Wildlife Fund..."


Pg 17 "...scientists who openly ally themselves with environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace and the WWF therebyincrease their likelihood of being recruited to serve as IPCC Lead Authors... ...observation... ...that the IPCC prefers to draw participants from an international milieu within which a vocal support for specific set of activist views on climate change is a prerequisite to participation and advancement..."



http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf








.

[Jabawocky]

Game

Set

Match

Mr Howard, thank you for being honest.

[Super Cecil]

Mr Howard, thank you for being honest

You mean like when he said there'd "Never ever be a GST"?

[Frank Arouet]

Groan, here we go again.

When he changed his mind, he took it to an election based on introducing one. Not like some more recent pretenders to the throne.

[eagle 86]

Now Super let not the facts get in the way of a good story - Howard did indeed say there would never be a GST - BUT in the lead up to the next election (which he narrowly won) as part of his policy speech he said that if he was elected he WOULD introduce a GST. He won and he did. Juliar said as part of her election policy speech leading up to the last election that "a government led by her would NOT introduce a carbon tax". then in power she did - a subtle but significant difference.
A difference between the GST and the co2 tax. Other taxes were dispensed with when the GST was introduced whereas the co2 tax is an ADDITIONAL tax.
GAGS
E86

[Towering Q]

I think it’s a good thing for groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation to examine the IPCC in detail. After all, policy decisions based on reports from the IPCC will have enormous ramifications on society. I don’t think anyone would dispute this.

However, they too should not be immune to scrutiny. It is only fair that they should reveal their backers. Not to do so will invite the inevitable assumptions from their critics that oil companies are backing the group to drive their own agenda. If this is the case, just say so.

Climate scientists back call for sceptic thinktank to reveal backers | Environment | The Guardian


"Lord Lawson's think-tank, which has been bankrolled by shadowy funders, is lobbying government for a change in climate policy that would affect the lives of millions of people," Montague told the Guardian. "The privacy of wealth has so far been valued above public accountability, even by our own civic institutions. The democratic principle of transparency is breached when a former chancellor can sit in the House of Lords influencing government policy on matters as important as climate change while accepting funding for his think-tank from secret supporters."


Openness and accountability, it cuts both ways.

[peterc005]

The Carbon Tax is here and the world has not ended.

Taking into account the compensation package out into place I don't think the Carbon Tax will have any net financial affect on myself or my family. It might go $100 either way, certainly nothing to notice.

Environmental conservation should be based on science, but sadly it has become an easy political target for conservatives.

Introducing the Carbon Tax is sound Public Policy and a positive step to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming.

[Jabawocky]

E86

And to add to that it is a grossly unfair tax.

If you want to tax CO2 output, fine, but don't complain about industry or others packing up and pissing off shore. Don't give rebates to farmers or the unemployed or pensioners.

we all pay based on what we use, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Then when everyone squeals out loud, then think about fixing it. Like abolish it.

What peeves me the most is a soft target minority will pay the most % of tax per unit used. That is simply not fair.

What is more, it is a tax an unfair grubby tax, not a solution to anything, real or perceived. Even if man made CO2 was causing drastic and catastrophic global warming (and it is not), what good will the very soft minority left paying the tax do that will change anything on a global scale? It is just the most stupid tax ever introduced.

I hate the Capital Gains Tax (and never paid any), I hate the FBT, I hate the luxury goods tax on cars like a standard Landcruiser, but I can tell you as much as I hate all these, this new carbon tax is the most evil of them all.

[BPA]

If the government was serious about the environment, they would remove the cap on movements per hour at Sydney Airport. Imagine the reduction in CO2 if aircraft weren't holding so they cap is busted.

[eagle 86]

P......,
I'll have to apologise to you - it's working - yesterday sleet in my loc - the lobster has got the temperature dropping already!
Seriously mate, do you think a p1ss-f@rting little country like Oz is going to lead the world in this "fight against climate change" - yes they are following us out of idle curiousity, not to put in place their own tax. I also don't think you have thought too carefully about the actual, indirect tax impost on your budget. Either that or you are one of the rusted on labor voters (only 29% according to today's polls) who can't see the woods for the trees.
GAGS
E86

[Ultralights]

So, in the spirit of paying GST on top of stamp duty, your employer paying a payrol tax, and then you paying an income tax, im am willing to bet the GST will be added after the cost of the carbon tax has been added to a product or service.

already seen a letter from Boral stating that all their products will rise 10% as of yesterday due to carbon tax, so immediatly, all new houses are going to cost 10% more to build, Minimum! and i wont worry about the letter informing me my rates will now increase $24 a quarter due to the tax.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via Towering Q;

I think it’s a good thing for groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation to examine the IPCC in detail. After all, policy decisions based on reports from the IPCC will have enormous ramifications on society. I don’t think anyone would dispute this.

However, they too should not be immune to scrutiny. It is only fair that they should reveal their backers. Not to do so will invite the inevitable assumptions from their critics that oil companies are backing the group to drive their own agenda. If this is the case, just say so.

Climate scientists back call for sceptic thinktank to reveal backers | Environment | The Guardian

Hmmm...

OK Towering Q, lets say for discusion purposes that Rupert Murdoch is funding GWPF (Heh, Loony Bob Brown blames Murdoch for everything so why not make him the villan here) and the IPCC is funded by governments and activist groups (actually, it is..)

Now that we have the funding taken care of, Towering Q what is it that GWPF is wanting Australia to do ? How much money do GWPF propose to extract from the Oz tax payer ? What Oz industrys do GWPF intend to destroy ? In general, how much money do the GWPF want Australia to piss against the wind ensuring an inpoverished future ?







.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Peter, peter, peter!
You have been brainwashed comrade!
Do some reading and find out how much carbon tax the polluters in this country who export will be paying.

Bbbbbbbbzzzz