Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

[Towering Q]

Now that we have the funding taken care of

With respect Binghi, you miss the point entirely.

What does the GWPF have to hide? If, for example, some of the groups backers were found to be Shell or BP, would that cause open minded members of the community to question the GWPFs motives, bearing in mind the obvious conflict of interest?

From the Guardian article:

If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.


And from Lawson, the GWPF Chairman:

"Proper scientists, scientists of integrity, they reveal, and voluntarily they wish to reveal, all their data and all their methods; they do not need a Freedom of Information Act request to force it out of them." He later added: "Integrity means you show everything, absolutely." His reluctance to reveal the identity of the GWPF's donors has led him to be accused of double standards.
(My bolding.)

[Flying Binghi]

via Towering Q;

With respect Binghi, you miss the point entirely.

What does the GWPF have to hide? If, for example, some of the groups backers were found to be Shell or BP, would that cause open minded members of the community to question the GWPFs motives, bearing in mind the obvious conflict of interest?

From the Guardian article:

If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.


And from Lawson, the GWPF Chairman:

"Proper scientists, scientists of integrity, they reveal, and voluntarily they wish to reveal, all their data and all their methods; they do not need a Freedom of Information Act request to force it out of them." He later added: "Integrity means you show everything, absolutely." His reluctance to reveal the identity of the GWPF's donors has led him to be accused of double standards.
(My bolding.)

...If, for example, some of the groups backers were found to be Shell or BP,...

Yer may have something there Towering Q. James Delingpole in his book Killing the Earth to Save It writes -

"...One of my favorite late afternoon pastimes - before the witching hour of 6pm and the moment arrives for my customary foie gras on toasted Poilane bread served with Chateau d'Yquem and poached gull's or leatherback turtle's eggs (depending on the season)- is to lie face down on my bespoke Philippe Starck massage table, while my Crimean masseuse Ivana pours hot oil onto my back and gives me a really good pummeling, to the soothing sounds of my personal string quartet in the billiard room of my private wing of the modest $79 million Regency townhouse I own on the edge of regent's park. Its a tough life but such are the sacrifices a fellow has to make when he is funded by big oil..."

...question the GWPFs motives...

Well then Towering Q, for the sake of discussion, lets work with GWPF being funded by "Shell or BP"

So back to my question...

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 ?







.

[jas24zzk]

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.

At the risk of being banned/censured.........

are you f*cking delerious or what!!!!!!

I am no greenie by any shake of the stick. But I am certainly a person whom is enviromentally concious. I own a 4wd drive, and I have a penchant for going bush bashing. That doesn't mean I go out and intentially destroy the bush. It also doesn't mean that I take the cheapest option for dealing with the waste that comes with my daily job. I seek out the environmentally friendly alternative, and pass those costs onto my customers.

This carbon tax that has been forced upon us, against the will of the majority will not address any of our concerns, nor will it make one iota of difference to the environment.
I think you will find that 99% of posters on this thread would be happy to pay the tax if they seriously thought it would make a difference.


Lets have a brief look at that shall we............... hmm I cannot find any goverment initiatives where Carbon Tax has been budgeted to be spent on clean energy research. No mate, its all been spent to balance dillards books.

Yep if the guvmint spent 100% of the tax collected on clean energy research/development, i'd shut the f*ck up, as would most posters on this subject. It ain't going to happen.

Sorry, but you an your doomsday mob are a joke.

[Towering Q]

Now that we have the funding taken care of, Towering Q what is it that GWPF is wanting Australia to do ?

I have yet to complete all 49 pages of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report number 4, so I cannot tell you what the GWPF would like Australia to do.

[...still single]

Environmental conservation should be based on science,

Couldn't agree more. So how come you start at science, then...

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

POW!!!!
You take a flying leap into the faith-based church of anthropogenic global warming. Where questioning the IPCC deity is heresy and debating the subject is blasphemy.

So, IF CO2 was toxic (it's not) AND reducing it's concentration in the atmosphere is a good thing (probably not) AND the reduction of CO2 would consequently lower global temperatures (no proof of that), WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CARBON TAX DOING TO ACHIEVE THAT END?

[djpil]

peter peter peter has not been brainwashed

[peterc005]

Here's a good high-level break down of the Carbon Tax effects on ordinary tax payers from The Australia Institute:

The Australia Institute

https://www.tai.org.au/downloads/Great_big_new_tax.pdf

For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.

As Greg Combet, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Innovation and Industry, observed that the Carbon Tax costs about $20 a ton (of carbon), while achieving the equivalent using solar rebates costs about $400 a ton.

[Clare Prop]

So if most people will have no nett cost, why is Gillard giving out all those millions in "compensation"?

[Frank Arouet]

Don't reply to the Troll, you only encourage him.

[404 Titan]

peterc005

The Australia Institute is the country’s most influential progressive think tank. Based in Canberra, it conducts research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues in order to inform public debate and bring greater accountability to the democratic process.

In other words it’s a lobby group whose sole purpose is to influence government decision making.

For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.

Well if that is the case how will this reduce CO₂emissions? The whole point of the carbon tax is it’s suppose to make using fossil fuels more expensive for everyone. The way it has been structured the wealthiest in society will pay the tax and lower income earners won’t. I can assure you that for the wealthiest this carbon tax will have a zero effect on their consumption and as the lower income earners are being compensated it will have minimal effect on their consumption habits either. All this tax is, is another excuse by left wing ideologist that pollute the ALP and Greens at further wealth redistribution, nothing more, nothing less, so please spare us the BS that it is good for the environment because it clearly has nothing to do with the environment at all.

[Jabawocky]

For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.

BULL ****!!!

Do you understand that?

How on earth can you explain your way out of that? Please do. If you can't it is time you admitted defeat.

You are wrong plain as day.

Stop making silly statements and explain yourself.



Please tell me all you do is fly ultralights in the circuit area of some obscure airfield. Please. I would hate to think with this level of reasoning skills you fly a RPT jet

[Old Fella]

CTC (Carbon Tax Crap)

As has already been stated here, if the imposition of the Carbon Tax could be shown to positively reduce the level of emissions globally we would likely all be prepared to accept the tax. To those whom accept the ALP line that "Only the large polluters will pay" crap, do you all think that the businesses which are taxed will absorb that cost. Of course they will not. They will, as with any other costs incurred, pass it down the chain till where the end user pays. In that sense it is just like the GST. We will all pay, and for what? Prof Garnaut is a Professor of Economics, not an expert on the climate or global warming. Strangely we rarely hear anything from Tim Flannery these days, you remember him? He told us that the water storage dams would never fill again. The only truthful thing he said was "That even if we reduced our emissions to the target level now it would be 600 to 1000 years before any measurable reduction in global warming would occur". Julia must have had him gagged because he is very quite these days.

[jas24zzk]

I agree Old Fella, it won't make one Iota of a difference.

Something that keeps getting raised here, which I feel is incorrect, is the comparison of the introduction of the GST Vs the Carbon Tax.

With the GST, it removed several other taxes, theoretically lowering the base price of an item. It was however easily simple to deal with from a business point of view. Even from a family point of view..you were going to pay 10% more for anything you needed. Fairly simple.


Dillard has already jumped in the media to say, hey the sky didn't fall...that is coming!!

There are a number of business owners here, that like myself, have no true idea on how we are going to be affected. As much time and effort we put into it, we can't project it. We ask our suppliers what the change in our charges are going to be, and they don't know!!!!
How do we project that and make changes to our pricing to accomodate it? We CAN'T. For many businesses, they won't work out the true change until its too late and unrecoverable....mine might be one of those..i don't know.

I have some 80 suppliers, only ONE has been able to provide me with data that I can use to work out my costings....the rest I cannot act upon until they settle.

As far as I can see, it might be 2 years before this crap settles, but you can guarantee costs will steadily rise. You'll note it when you take your Porsche in for a Major service next week, and a Minor service in 3 months, and the cost of the minor is bigger thant the major.

Dillard has destroyed this country....not quite overnight, but overtime as people adjust............................................

[Old Fella]

GST v's Carbon Tax

jas24zzk. Agreed on the GST. One very big difference also, Mr Howard took the GST to the voters pre-election. It is politically expedient to forget the myriad of sales taxes removed and replaced by the GST. Also, the GST goes back to the States, albiet not always in the proportions which satisfy all States.

How anyone can believe the claim that Australia is travelling well, I do not know. We are living on record borrowings and exceptional waste by the present Federal government. Getting rid of Ms Gillard and Co cannot come quickly enough for me. Also, as one of those in receipt of DFRDB provident fund payments, indexed to the CPI, I got a whole 98 cents per fortnight increase in the July bi-annual adjustment. Whoopee, I had better be careful not to spend it all at once.

[jas24zzk]

jas24zzk. Agreed on the GST. One very big difference also, Mr Howard took the GST to the voters pre-election. It is politically expedient to forget the myriad of sales taxes removed and replaced by the GST. Also, the GST goes back to the States, albiet not always in the proportions which satisfy all States.

Yep, at least Howard had the ballz to take something this major to an election...Equivalent of a budget referendum in my view. I probably voted against him, as I grew up to be a staunch Labour voter, not that it mattered too much as the result didn't kill our economy. I am still a fan of Keating.

Dillards people swap deal with Malaysia, should only be approved if the first boatload we send them includes, Kirner, Cain, Dillard, Brumby, Bracks, Balleiu (or however you spell that import), Brown sandwich, yabbot and Shorten!


What you say about the return of the GST to the states, albeit unfairly, is probably the best thing about our tax system.


hmm

Heres a thought...
Turnbull gets his nads out of the frost, pulls the Nat party away from the co-alition and gives us a 3rd party option. That might wake up the Libs and Labs! I'm sick of the options we have, which really equate to 2 different shades of sh*t

Cheers
Jas

[peterc005]

@Jabawocky - I hold a CPL and my VH-registered plane is hangared at YMMB.

In response to your other points:

The financial impact of the Carbon Tax is minimal, typically less than $10 a week.

The Government offsets, in the form of direct compensation and tax breaks, are typically slightly greater than $10 a week.

The true cost of the Carbon Tax is not financial (which probably has no net cost); the true cost is the pain of having to listen to boorish, crazy and ill-informed people rant on about it on a popular aviation forum.

@Jabawocky - you should consult your doctor with a view to having the dose of your medication reviewed.

[peterc005]

In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.

Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.

Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.

Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.

I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.

This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.

I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.

Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.

Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.

Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.

Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.

I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.

[djpil]

Climate change is indeed a fact, the cause is only a hypothesis but that is irrelevant to the current issue - the claimed objective of the carbon tax bears no resemblance to the outcome.
(As an aside, I note that lefties and greenies very quickly turn to insults in the face of rational debate.)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What do you think would have happened to smoking levels if smokers had been monetarily compensated for the same amount as each tax rise? Do you think as many would have quit or reduced their intake? I doubt it. Where is the incentive? Just like the Carbon Tax.

I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.

No, the light it will be viewed in is the same one that shines on the AIDS/Swine Flu/Y2K/World will freeze over/Bird Flu doomsday predictions. I am ashamed to think what the world will look back on and think of this era.

[eagle 86]

P.....
The reason the co2 tax will not affect you is now clear - you obviously have a bit of money behind you to own and operate an aircraft in the current fiscal world - the average joe in struggle street can't afford those luxuries. Got a house in T'rack as well? The only person not listening here mate is you. I say again my one luxury in life is a daily cup of coffee with my wife in my favourite cafe. On Sunday 1 July 2012 the price went up .50cx2x7=$7.00 per week - I have only $3.00 left for all other weekly expenses. Wake up to yourself mate, separate yourself from your other chardy sipping chaps and go have a look at the real world. Bandt your local member by any chance?
GAGS
E86