The Daily Wire: Carbon Tax | Site Launch - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

Carbon Tax | Site Launch Site launch

#1 User is offline   JJ 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 12-January 11

  Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:58 PM

I could keep working on it, but at the end of the day I think it's best to get the site out there. I'm open to suggestions and modifications etc. The address is http://www.carbontax.net.au

If you run a blog, please consider linking to it. There is a lot of competition for the google rankings, but I believe it is possible to get the site to sit at the top if we're clever about it. The key to getting it ranked is in the anchor text (i.e. the text that you wrap the html link around). Please use one of the following:

(preferred) -> Carbon Tax
-> Carbon Tax Facts
-> Carbon Tax Australia

The ideal link on your blog is if you can add the site to your blogroll and simply call it "Carbon Tax", as well as refer to it in your posts and variably use carbon tax, carbon tax facts, carbon tax Australia to describe and link to it within your articles.

It would also be of great help if everyone who doesn't run a blog shares it on Facebook, tweets it, as well as click the Google plus button (which should appear there shortly). Sharing the site in the comments section of other blogs or forums can also be a big help.

This thread is for discussion by people who support the government's plan to price carbon, so naysayers please stay out.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Please read the Forum Rules & Info thread if you haven't already.
0

#2 User is offline   Dorex 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 23-March 11

Posted 23 July 2011 - 09:11 PM

Personally, I prefer an ETS over a Carbon Tax. This is because a carbon tax is like a watered down version of an ETS and also, an ETS provides financial benefits for those polluters that can adjust their practices to minimise pollution and would be cheaper to pollute if a lot of mitigation is carried out.

Even though I am not the biggest supporter of a carbon tax, I still prefer it over a the opposition's "direct action" because, as a free-market environmentalist, it creates financial incentives for polluters to adjust business practices and to invest in R+D in renewable technology. The point of a carbon tax is not to cut down on emissions but rather to stimulate innovation in the renewable energy, low-carbon products and green building sectors, courtesy of the private sector (not public).

The website represents a decent attempt but I still think the scepticism comes in 4 forms:
1) Fears that China and US aren't cutting their emissions. I can safely say that both sides want to cut 5% of emissions by 2020 and I don't think China and US polluters are going to care about what happens in Oz politics anyway.
2) "Tax" is a negative word whilst "spending" is a vote winning word.
3) Misunderstanding of redistribution and efficiency and equity implications.
4) Scepticism on climate change.

I wish you all the best in your endeavours.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   Julian Taylor 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 07-July 11
  • LocationClare, South Australia

Posted 23 July 2011 - 09:31 PM

It's a good looking site.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:41 AM

I find it quite intolerable and obnoxious when a project or proposal is to be enacted and political parties for vested interests criticize the negative aspects in the absence of the positive.Faults can be found in any project or proposal but to then shoot it down by simply emphasising the negatives in the absence of the positive is simply unfair and thoroughly amateurish. This is doubly applicable should the concept proposed is of either national or international interest and priority. And this is what is occurring with this issue. Now the NSW Liberals got into the act by getting Treasury to cost the quote "impact" of the carbon tax.And it did.....31,000 jobs to be lost according to it's calculations.Nothing was said of the positives. Nothing was said about Liberal alternative policy on climate change.(have they got one?).Nothing was said that if the Federal government and the states work together those job losses will be minimised.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:24 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 04 August 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Faults can be found in any project or proposal but to then shoot it down by simply emphasising the negatives in the absence of the positive is simply unfair and thoroughly amateurish.


I sure would not be engaging you as my legal representative to argue my case in criminal court. No doubt I could rely on the prosecutor to spruik my many admirable traits.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   Big Mal 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 04-August 11
  • LocationAdelaide

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:34 PM

Great site but no reference to the authors of the pieces. At first I thought this was the AG site then There Conversation site and then the CSIRO. What is it really?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 04 August 2011 - 06:17 PM

That is good point Icey....for judicial cases. But we are talking here of political argument.The electorate out there is not in a court of law. And you cannot apply legal argument to political ones or vice versa.The former requires evidence or proof. The latter does not.To argue politically on a policy of your opposite on just the negatives and nothing else is.....quite amateurish.It is not difficult to do and schoolchildren would be capable of doing it.It does really show the level of intelligence which exists in the Liberal Party presently
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   dumbandumber 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 07-February 12
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:59 PM

Hi Guys,

I think the carbon tax is the biggest scam in history designed to send Australian tax payers money overseas in the bucket loads.

I have found a site that i agree with right down to the last word.

Here it is for those that are interested, i think it describes the carbon tax perfectly.

Read the whole article here
http://www.hotheads....0tax%20scam.htm

Quote

UN IPCC OFFICIAL ADMITS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations international body that assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Its reports have been the entire basis on which various Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) and carbon taxes have been imposed to allegedly stop the planet from heating up.

In recent times, IPCC reports on global warming have been exposed as being falsified and in fact hard data has shown that the planet has actually slightly cooled in the past decade, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. So the "Global Warming" term was abandoned in favour of "Climate Change", allowing the IPCC to hedge its bets as to which way global temperatures were going to move.

The carbon tax imposed by the Gillard Labor government is based on the IPCC data that is so flaky, however many people have wondered about the real reason that this tax was imposed, even though it exposed Gillard as a monumental liar. Well, the truth about the so-called global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide increase and all the rest of the IPCC data has been exposed as a gigantic scam by none other than a top IPCC official who is right on the inside of this organisation.

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources were to be negotiated. Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, "We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth, the admission from one of the top IPCC people that instigated it is the absolute proof that it is a monstrous scam. Edenhofer stated, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." As such, Edenhofer is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

As Australia's carbon tax is based on this amazing con, it therefore has absolutely no grounds to be imposed. Every Australian should now use Edenhofer's admission to complain to every sitting Member of Parliament and state to them that if the IPCC climate change findings are a scam for wealth redistribution, then the carbon tax based on those findings must also be a scam. There is no way that the government can possibly deny it, when the IPCC's own official admits that it is a con-job.


Quote

"A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions"
Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong


Quote

"Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price."
Ross Garnaut, Labor Government Appointee and Author of the Climate Change Review


Quote

There will be no carbon tax under the government i lead
Julia Gillard


Quote

Wayne Swan: “it is a hysterical allegation that we are moving to a carbon tax”
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   dumbandumber 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 07-February 12
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:04 PM

Some more here

Quote

"The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy."
So there is Prime Minister Julia Gillard blatantly admitting on the record that the so-called big polluters won't pay a cent of this CO2 tax, but it will be passed straight onto anybody who buys anything whatsoever, because there is not a single item or service that will not be affected by this tax. So every time that Gillard states that the big polluters will pay the tax, she is lying.

This serial liar of a Prime Minister has known all along that not one of the alleged polluters will pay anything at all and that's why this tax is such an obvious scam. If the polluters are not penalised for polluting, then they have no incentive to stop doing this. But of course we all know that CO is not a pollutant anyway, so this merely compounds the massive con-job that Gillard and her regime is trying to perpetrate onto the Australian community.


Quote

WHY THE PUSH FOR A CARBON TAX

The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax is that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found.

Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that industrialised nations are now essentially bankrupt.

The creation of money without tangible assets to back it has finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt.

So as the world moves from production to consumption, the emphasis has shifted to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem.

Journalist Richard K Moore has written a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called Prognosis 2012:

Towards a New World Social Order that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions.

This article is available on the Downloads page.

The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. Of course if polluters actually do reduce emissions, the tax rate will rise to compensate for the reduced revenue,

but if polluters manage to actually reduce their emissions to a marked degree, governments that rely on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading will collapse. So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to

reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emissions won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.

Read more here
http://www.hotheads....0tax%20scam.htm


Quote

GILLARD IGNORES THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION

In April 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that half the greenhouse gases and pollution in Australia was being emitted by just 50 companies.

So if that were the case, the most obvious way to eradicate half the harmful emissions would be to deal with those 50 companies and legislate to force them to switch from coal-fired energy to gas-fired energy and also monitor their emissions and fine them if they did not ensure that they complied.

This solution would see a huge and very real reduction in all pollution, not just the theoretical 5% reduction in carbon dioxide that Gillard claims will occur with her $11 billion per year tax.

Even if only a 25% reduction in all greenhouse gases was achieved by such a measure, this would be a real achievement, not the bogus reduction of CO2 that Gillard is claiming.

Actually forcing the biggest polluters to stop polluting would ensure a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but of course it would not raise revenue for the government and its quasi-communist ideology of wealth redistribution, which is the whole idea of the CO2 tax.

The problem with a CO2 tax is that it would not stop polluters from emitting CO2, it would merely impose a cost on them for doing so and this cost would merely be passed onto the end-users of their products after the government had reaped the revenue from this tax.

This is why the Gillard Labor government would not countenance any real measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, simply because such measures would actually achieve their goals without ripping off the taxpayers and filling government coffers. In fact, with a CO2 tax, the government would have no incentive in reducing CO2 because that would result in a reduction in revenue.

It is the same principle as speed cameras, where a government would lose a fortune if every motorist stopped speeding and the revenue from fines dried up.

taken from here
http://www.hotheads....0tax%20scam.htm


Quote

"The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy."

So there is Prime Minister Julia Gillard blatantly admitting on the record that the so-called big polluters won't pay a cent of this CO2 tax, but it will be passed straight onto anybody who buys anything whatsoever, because there is not a single item or service that will not be affected by this tax.

So every time that Gillard states that the big polluters will pay the tax, she is lying.

This serial liar of a Prime Minister has known all along that not one of the alleged polluters will pay anything at all and that's why this tax is such an obvious scam.

If the polluters are not penalised for polluting, then they have no incentive to stop doing this. But of course we all know that CO is not a pollutant anyway, so this merely compounds the massive con-job that Gillard and her regime is trying to perpetrate onto the Australian community.

Why do the Labor Government and the Greens insist that only big business will pay the carbon tax, when their own Climate Change advisor Ross Garnaut openly states that households will ultimately bear the full cost of the tax and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard admits to this too? Does this not prove that the Labor Government and Greens are constantly lying to the Australian people?

taken from here
http://www.hotheads....0tax%20scam.htm
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:49 AM

Dumbandumber must have missed this bit -

Quote

This thread is for discussion by people who support the government's plan to price carbon, so naysayers please stay out.



I'm sure it was an innocent mistake
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

View PostHDMC, on 08 February 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Dumbandumber must have missed this bit -

I'm sure it was an innocent mistake


Quite so, but do you know what's really hilarious?

In the opening post, JJ said:

This thread is for discussion by people who support the government's plan to price carbon, so naysayers please stay out.


The post prior to dumbandumber's post yesterday was DC's post on 4th of August last year. Since then, there've been no supporters heralding the government's ill-fated plan.

Given the passage of six months of disinterest, I think Dumbandumber deserves a DailyWire medal ! :emot-downsbravo:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2747
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:14 PM

View Posticey, on 08 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Quite so, but do you know what's really hilarious?

The post prior to dumbandumber's post yesterday was DC's post on 4th of August last year. Since then, there've been no supporters heralding the government's ill-fated plan.

Given the passage of six months of disinterest, I think Dumbandumber deserves a DailyWire medal ! :emot-downsbravo:


Second the motion :lol:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply