Terry McCrann is mystified by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s decision to consider imposing the carbon tax she ruled out just six weeks ago, when there was an election to win:
Why did she earlier lead the push in the Gang of Four to dump the Government’s ETS – the move which destroyed former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s credibility and ultimately sealed his fate?
Presumably because she thought it would cost votes and possibly government. Yet now, at the first opportunity after the election, she’s grabbed what she thought was the hottest of hot potatoes!...
No, Julia’s experience could mirror that of the Canadian government that tried a similar slick trick to her – promising in the election campaign no GST and then slipping it in after winning the election.
At the next election, it was reduced to two seats. Yes, two seats. And Julia is supposed to be the smart one.
No kidding, Sherlock:
Wait until it dawns on Windsor that a carbon dioxide tax will also send power bills through the roof.
Reader Stephen wonders just how high an Australian carbon tax would have to be to actually force people to slash their emissions, when the overseas data is so discouraging:
How effective are taxes (and similar schemes) at significantly and meaningfully reducing emissions? As the stated goal is to save the planet from the “dangerous” levels of CO2, the actual levels need to be reduced substantially. This is especially the case where other countries are increasing their emissions and will continue to do so.
Some interesting data:
Both Sweden and Finland implemented carbon taxes in the 90s, how effective have they been at reducing CO2 levels? Almost meaningless up to 2006.
By 2006, Finland had grown its emissions by 2.5 metric tons per capita, since implementing a tax. Sweden on the other hand had reduced its emissions by 0.8 tons per capita, since implementing a tax. According to the “science”, I’m assuming this is inadequate.
Over this same period, Australia grew its emission by 0.8 tons per capita. Between these two countries and our own, there is no meaningful difference in emissions with or without a tax. The question then becomes: how painful does the tax need to be for it to actually be meaningful (from a believer’s perspective)?
The Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, boasts on Twitter that the Greens forced Julia Gillard yesterday to set up her rigged committee to work out how to tax emissions:
Because Melb went Green on Aug 21, we could negotiate a committee to put a price on pollution. Today the c’ee was set up. Well done, Melb.
about 16 hours ago via TweetDeck
Retweeted by 28 people
The Government really is a Greens-Labor coalition.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world keeps refusing to do what Gillard says we must – and that includes even Barack Obama’s US:
President Barack Obama’s dream of passing a big bill to battle global warming is likely dead for the rest of his term, according to a leading Democrat and long time backer of climate legislation.
“I don’t see a comprehensive bill going anywhere in the next two years,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman told the Reuters Washington Summit on Wednesday.
Bingaman’s comments are the most frank to date from a Democratic senator on legislation that Obama has said was key to giving the United States a lead role in global efforts to fight climate change.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog
Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and is a regular commentator on Channel 9′s Today show and ABC TV’s Insiders. He will be heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the breakfast show of new radio station MTR 1377. His book ‘Still Not Sorry’ was released in 2006.