GetUp! Action For Australia

The numbers is really not that important, Getup is claiming victory by having a few thousand people at a pro carbon tax rally. Getup has almost 500,000 members. You can easily mobilise members whereas the anti carbon tax rally was from normal folk with no organisation organising a huge membership to get to a rally. In my opinion it’s not a victory for getup because, like the union movement, they can quickly bring together thousands of people to a rally anywhere.

But that’s all todays result comes down to, an organised left wing political organisation more aligned with the greens than labor, mobilising members to get to a rally versus people who are not affliliated with any group coming together to fight a common cause. It’s obvious your leanings are green but say for example I got the membership of my church to come to the anti carbon tax, getup’s rally would have been dwarfed by tens of thousands. The unions can mobilise tens of thousands to get to a rally and believe it or not, the union movement is not convinced about this tax. We know jobs will be lost, that has been the experience overseas, yes green jobs were created but far more were lost. Your rally today proved far less than you think but although only 400 people turned up to gillards office, the statement made by them was far greater than yours.

Agree with you completely Michael, how nice to hear some one making sense……Judith

What would Michael have said had the numbers been the other way around? People will not attend a rally unless they support the cause. The anti-carbon-price forces are getting a huge free kick from the support of mass media and shock jocks, so if there really is the “people’s revolt” Tony Abbott talks about, why weren’t they at Gillard’s office? I suggest Michael do some reading on the job creation in Germany, which is the one European economy performing strongly.

I strongly commend the Carbon Tax but believe the Govt has not gotten tough enough. On consulting the Periodic Table I notice many fine Elements have been neglected. Take Chlorine, Boron even Nitrogen. Completely forgotten! Imagine how much tax could be taken from the people if we introduced a taxation for each of these!! . Oxygen could have a Super Tax assigned to it. The populace would soon learn how lucky they were to have The Greens ruling. If people refuse to pay we could withdraw the supply of Oxygen. Run with the idea Bob, Gillard will fall into line.

Missed the point entirely, Gullible

Jenny How much will the Carbon Tax cost? How much will it reduce global temperatures? Dont give me the old “We have got to do something” line. All we will do is have a hare-brained scheme that makes not one iota of difference but fools the Gullible!

Take NZ my homeland. A Carbon Tax introduced by The Nationals (God forbid) and we now have a new term “Power Poverty” the poor and elderly dying in freezing dark flats. Is that what it takes to make you bourgeois feel good about Mother Nature?

I care about the environment. This should be an apolitical thing. Get out of your Renault, stop your overseas holiday, grow your own food. Socialist countries have many of the worst environmental records.
Go plant some trees Jenny.

I was one of the thousands at the pro-pollution tax rally at Treasury Place in Melbourne on Saturday, and was greatly heartened to see the size and the composition of the rally. Not a chardonnay in sight, (maybe a couple of latte’s in cardboard cups, hard to tell). Any so-called left-wing loony fringe or phalanx of unionists would have felt a little out of place, surrounded by the mass of ordinary and extraordinary Australian families, determined not to be ruled by shock-jock denialist demagogues. Young and old, quietly determined, this was the silent majority making their views known, peacefully, logically and with determination.

There is still hope for this country when concerned and responsible citizens are prepared to Get Up and be counted. Well done to all involved, we’ll meet again whenever we are needed.

Get Up is an activist group. Your 500,000 membership sign up ready to protest. That is how you get your point across. Consider this however, that the ‘no to carbon dioxide tax’ is formed by the average taxpayer with no great funding behind them. Just people excersising their democratic right to be heard.
So for an amatuer group to form those numbers would definately be worrying to the politicians as they can distinguish the facts that Get Up is set up to protest and these people are not.
But please explain to me why the journalists are concerend?

It’s not such a puzzle really. If half a million diverse and “average” Australians with no particular axe to grind have signed up as “ready to protest”, with no funding at all behind them, except what comes from their own pockets, it seems there is something to protest about.

GetUp was founded in response to growing community concern about the power wielded by rich industry lobby groups, together with the rantings of the shock jocks, which have been canvassing extreme right-wing politics. As the GetUp web site states, “GetUp does not back any particular party, but aims to build an accountable and progressive Parliament – a Parliament with economic fairness, social justice and environment at its core”.
Given the amount of ranting and raving from the shock jocks and Tony Abbott against a price on pollution, I am amazed and delighted that only 400 turned up for Abbott’s “peoples’ revolt”. It seems “the mountain laboured mightily and has brought forth a mouse”

There are journalists on both sides of the argument; some analysing the actual merits of the price on pollution, others merely recording the political implications. This is as it should be. It will not be surprising, given the dominance of the Murdoch media empire in Australian media, and that empire’s right-wing focus, if more journalists are against than for a price on pollution.

The non-coal-ition politicians will not be worried, as they can recognise the fact that “these people” (Tony’s peoples’ revolt) are far from an amateur group; they are the best (or should that be the worst) that the Federal Opposition can muster, despite the rantings of the shock jocks, whereas GetUp people make up their own minds, ans will only support specific GetUp campaigns that accurately reflect their views

Sorry about the duplication of some of this in my earlier post; I am just a concerned citizen, not a practised blogger

What is a climate denier?
Someone who believes that we don’t have a climate?

Jenny you completely missed my point. The point was an organisation with huge resources can organise a big rally. People with no affiliation with eachother are less likely to be able to do something that results in thousands in a short time. You know the unions can get rallys in the 10′s of thousands if they wanted to, getups result is not really that impressive at all given a membership close to 500,000. So only 8000 is really hopeless when there are well over 400000 members in getup and members of green organisations. It just ain’t that impressive. There is no organisation that is set up to fight the carbon tax. If they did get big numbers it would have been surprising to tell you the truth but it would have been much more impressive if they did due to the lack of resources at their disposal. Getup can just send out about half a million emails to members, they can contact members of the greens, the anticarbon protestors cannot do that. That is why getups result really isn’t that great and we know the centre of Melbourne is green (the only green MP in Parliament is there) so it’s not surprising given the political leaning of the area and getups membership that 7 or 8000 could come on Saturday morning for a protest. As for job creation in europe, you do know that more jobs have been lost than created by green jobs don’t you? You say the european economy is strong, are you sure you know where europe is, some of their countries are economic basket cases, and with 10% unemployment you are saying it is great over there?

Hi non-sheep, yes to deny climate changes is like saying we don’t have different seasons and one year will be exactly the same as the next. There are 2 components to climate change, change due to mans activity and natural change. It’s obvious from history that climate change has occurred without mans influence, the question today is how much is due to man’s activity. It seems people who push the climate change barrow believe all change is due to man which ignores that there is a natural change which is ongoing as it has for many many millenia. Can someone here on this site say what percentage is due to man and what percentage is due to a natural cycle?

Michael, I think you missed my point. The article contains the phrase ‘climate denier’. I have never heard anyone deny that we have a climate!
If the alarmists want to use the phrase ‘climate change denier’, fair enough. That would still be absurd though as I have never heard anyone deny that our climate changes.
Alarmists and their flocks need to use a new description of those who continue to study data rather than blindly follow spurious theories. May I suggest, ‘those who remain unconvinced by theories, not facts, about whether or not humans have altered our climate’?

Bob Brown should be condemned for his insensative remarks in the middle of this unspeakable tragedy in a perverse attempt to advance his political views in the wake of horrific disaster. Thousands of Japanese are dead, thousands more are missing, tens of thousands have been left homeless, their lives shattered and devastated and all Bob Brown can think of is, ‘Hey here’s a chance for another Green’s media stunt’. Senator Brown has form when it comes to manufacturing media stunts. In recent weeks he attempted to blame the tragic flood disaster that befell Queensland and other parts of Australia on Climate Change. Yet another attempt to score a grubby, cheap political point. Once again Senator Brown’s opportunistic remarks were delivered with absolutly no regard for the families of those who had so tragicaly lost their lives and the thousands more who were traumatised by the event.
All this from a man who, despite having just a miniscule percentage of support from the Australian electorate, is holding a gun to Julia Gillard’s head. “Support my extremest policies Julia, or I’ll withdraw my support for your Government.”
Senator Brown, you should hang your head in shame, how dare you!

@Pmwilkinson1: I noticed one of the young “logical” people in your rally, was a young girl holding a picture of a polar bear on a chunk of ice.
She said, choking back tears, that we “have to save the panda bears on the ice blocks.”
Now, if you honestly believe that some greenie/loony parents hadn’t brainwashed her with utter rubbish, then you are in total denial!

The polar bear population is increasing & that photo was taken of a bear floating a few feet from a huge ice-shelf.

We have children now believing that Carbon Dioxide is a toxic pollutant which kills plants!
When I was at school, the science said CO2 is an essential element for life on earth.
Not enough CO2 = failure of all crops and plant life, therefore NO life on earth.

You just have to look at commercial greenhouses, which ADD large amounts of CO2 to INCREASE plant growth.

Science has been polluted by political agendas.

Smoke n’ mirrors – climate change is the biggest con ever pulled on the international community…TAX TAX TAX – more waste by the socialist wasters!

lol, yes I see your point.

Quoted in a Courier Mail article:
“But Tony Hooper, who organised the rally against the tax, said the plan should be scrapped because Australians had been lied to.”
– shows a blind commitment to a certain political view, without regard to whether the policy in itself is good or bad. It’s not an intelligent reason for rejecting something.

I was at the event and felt so happy that there were so many like-minded Australians at the Rallie. Thank you to Getup for organising and geting us all involved. We well win because it is the right thing to do – that is put a price on the polluters and to invest in clean energy!!! Thank you again – Donna Carrington

Sorry, Jbhawkins, the fact is we are living the result of our past and these things are happening partly due to climate change – why is it so wrong for Bob Brown to speak the truth. I would like to add that know we no why NOT to build nuclear power plants especially in earthquake zones. Absolute stupidity!!! These facts do not take anything away from the concern, worrry and absolute shock of what is happening around the world especially in Japan. My love and compassion goes out to these people and I could not ever begin to know their pain and sorrow!!! – Donna

Hi non-sheep can you please post some peer reviewed papers linked to your facts by “those who continue to study data rather than blindly follow spurious theories”? Thanks, I am still waiting to see these facts that the climate change deniers speak of. If you cannot then I don’t think you can call them facts… maybe just opinions. Hmm maybe you can change it to “those who continue to have an opinion about facts, whether it is based on study or not, rather than blindly follow spurious theories”

GetUp is an extremist lefty group full of bludger’s because that’s exactly what they fight for – the right to bludge from the worker. NO CARBON TAX!

“Consider this however, that the ‘no to carbon dioxide tax’ is formed by the average taxpayer with no great funding behind them.”

Apart from the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Murdoch press, a swathe of commercial radio stations, yeah, it’s a real grassroots action with no great funding behind it! Get a grip, man!

The emotive irrationalisms and trendy cliches from “real everyday” people This faux policy advocacy service is nothing but a leftist collective that presents itself exactly like a scientology presentation.

A good rally is just what I needed this week.

After talking to a number of business people this week who were disinterested in supporting my tree planting project (‘it’s just a waste of money’ was one comment), listening to Tony Abbott calling for a ‘peoples revolt’ against a carbon tax and hearing about the ‘shock jocks’ on the radio scaring people into thinking that a tax on carbon is going to distroy our economy – I was feeling not a little despondent.

However, at a Pro-Climate Rally on Saturday in Treasury Place amougst 7500 people, I have come away with a new lease of life and more drive to keep ‘doing what I am doing’. As one speaker said ‘We don’t have the luxury of giving up’. Indeed we don’t!

Colleen (Fifteen Trees)

I read funding came from the unions during the election campaign. In fact over 1 million dollars

The group of families I attended the pro carbon tax rally with are certainly not bludgers, a bunch of well educated professionals amongst us, who happen to care about a future for our children, and generations to come. Broad sweeping generalisations do not help your cause.

I attended Saturday’s rally, and was heartened by the numbers there. I was concerned though, that many appeared to be prosperous (well dressed, probably tertiary educated, though not necessarily from inner Melbourne – I travelled on a train full of ralliers from the outer suburbs). Not the people who will be most affected by a carbon tax, though.

What people must realise is that this situation is extremely grave, that if we don’t act, our beautiful little planet may become unihabitable. We must believe the scientists. Their work is NOT a left wing plot. At least, accept that we should act in case they are right.

I heard a European woman Authority on carbon tax (can’t remember her name) on ABC radio, who said she was astonished that we are still having this debate – it has been “done and dusted” years ago in Europe, where they are just getting on with it.

After reading so many of these blogs, I am now totally disheartened. Many of these people appear to be motivated by nothing but self-interest. Don’t they have children or grandchildren? We all need to accept that our lives will need to change, and that we will have to make sacrifices. If we don’t, it will be forced on us, and it won’t be nice.

You people have just jumped on to the climate change bandwagon you cannot produce one thread of evidence that a tax on carbon dioxide is anything more than a money grab

I really think that was not the only reason Kath. I’m sure he mentioned more than that if asked why he was against the tax. As you know, everything a person says is not reported, sometimes only bits which do not give the full context. I would agree with you if blind commitment was all it was but this issue is much bigger and I’m sure the person quoted would say much more than just because we were lied to.

Get a bit of commonsense please, if the liberals, nationals and murdoch press organised saturdays rally do you honestly think only 400 people would turn up? It was not organised by any of them. The reason I dare say is because if it was it would be seen in just the same way that many see getups rally, an organisation with thousands of members getting together. It was people who do not normally rally and are not members of political parties or organisations like getup.

Investing in clean energy is great Donna, many businesses already invest in it. In fact much more should be spent on research into new technologies, the amount currently spent is pitiful. I like the idea put forward recently where we take advantage of new technologies with the key objective of making them so cheap that it will be more costly to use older forms such as coal powered electricity. But I have a couple of questions for you.

Why is a price on Carbon the best way to go? The experience overseas in Europe and in New Zealand with their ETS has not been good. Many are regretting that decision due to the suffering it has caused in unemployment and people not being able to afford to do things like turn air conditioners on. If I am fully compensated, for example, as the government has said, why would I change what I do in terms of cutting emissions? The world has actually been cooling since 1998. If you don’t believe me just ask the head of the IPCC, he admitted in 2008 that the world had not been warming for at least the previous 8 years, 2009 was seen as a warmer year but let’s face it, 2010 was not a hot year. Why do you feel a Carbon tax is the right thing to do then if even if the head of the IPCC has said we are not cooling?

Funny thing about peer reviewed papers, who reviews the papers, peers! The peers of the scientists, being other scientists, review the papers. I wonder if they reviewed the papers from the bright spark who warned us of global cooling in 1975. To tell you the truth peer reviewed has been devalued by scientists getting it wrong and also by alarmists such as those who claim the ice caps will be melted in a year or 2, or those that claim, as was in 2000, that within a few years snow in europe would be a thing of the past. Yes, peer reviewed holds a lot of weight doesn’t it. Not.

Dear Jenny,

I presume you’re off gathering facts and figures on the questions that Not Gullible and Michael have asked. I cant wait to read your reply, which will show them exactly how little it will cost, and how the global temperature will start decreasing once Gillard lets her tax rip. To put an end to the argument, please tell us what temperature difference we can expect Worldwide in the next 10, 20,50 and 100 years. Please also give us the figures on the strong economy in Europe you speak of, you’ve got me thinking i have been misinformed. Do me one favour though, please don’t trot out anything from that moron Tim Flannery, who has been shown to be a worse liar than Gillard.

Ha ha Mick! Hysterical. More inane, sensationalist and ignorant comments like this please! I was laughing so hard I fell off my seat!

I appreciate your comments Jill. I was there with my family and though we are seemingly ‘prosperous’, tertiary-educated and so forth, we are on one (very low) income at the moment. This tax will effect our hip pocket but the effects of climate change will be much more serious and ever-lasting than a little extra tax. This is a small sum of money now for a (potentially) massive long term benefit – at least a step in the right direction. It too astounds me how many ignorant people we have in this country but they exist in every country – even the politically progressive European countries that we ‘thinkers’ in Australia pine after.

Try not to be disheartened. It takes education of a long period to achieve real change. Getup is a wonderful example of truly democratic community education. It does seem to attract its fair share of hot-tempered, uninformed people. I wonder what they would be thinking if they had just survived a climate-change induced atrocity like the earthquake and tsunami in Japan…? Would they wake up? I have hope that they will eventually. I think part of their toxic arguments in this blog are due to their fear – they are afraid of their own ignorance and the consequences of their continued inaction.

Keep up the good fight:)

I was not one of those at the pro-pollution tax rally, living, as I do in Queensland, but we Get Up members are not ruled, or even influenced by the ravings of shock jocks and the turnout was impressive. These shock jock parasites have the backing of the big polluters, the Coalition and the Murdoch press and have been allowed to get away with mouthing their lies and inciting those who listen to them to believe the most utter twaddle. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, Q&A, say that she would continue going on the programme of one of the worst examples of the genre to let it be known that the days of making false and misleading propaganda for the far-right without challenge are over.
Get Up was formed of people who don’t support any political party blindly but are able and willing to think for themselves. It is funded generally by member donations but accepts gifts from others to support particular causes and in not beholden to anyone but members.
Tony Abbott and his crew will have to produce more than their negative and divisive claptrap in order to win support from people who think. A price on carbon pollution is a necessary tool for reducing pollution and encouraging development of clean, sustainable energy and products

“Shock Jocks and ultra conservative groups”??? What are you talking about??? There is no “Australian Tea Party”, and if you have evidence of such a party or organisation then please make it known to the public and your email based membership instead of just running this scare mongering campaign full of speculation and sensationalism and completely bereft of facts. Really, this latest communique from Get Up is scandalous!!! Facts please!

The Australian rally against a climate tax that you have mentioned is a completely grassroots movement – much more so than Get Up itself which has proven connections to some VERY high places and is funded partially by wealthy foundations! Get Up is the original astroturfer!

So please, publish some evidence for your accusations that this Australian grassroots movement is the equivalent of the Tea Party in the USA, and please make this evidence public on your website, if you have any.

Well said consider this!! They like you to think they are poor done by aussies. They have been brain washed by the media and far-right wing politicians! People like Michael are probably paid by Cory Bernardi and his friends to stir up Get Up members.

I can’t believe the selfishness of people. It is all about “I” “I” “I” with people like you Michael. What about community and caring real values.

The liberal party no the cost of everything and the value of nothing..

this is the difference on CARBON TAX…..THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE carbon tax ARE DOING IT FOR FREE BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY BELIEVE……..GET UP needs your money to pay to do convince you it is not a tax…

….DISAPPOINTING GET UP…..YOU HAVE LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS ISSUE……..

THINK GETUP BEFORE YOU TAKE LOBBYISTS MONEY……WE CAN SEE CLEARLY WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO……..YOU ARE NO LONGER INDEPENDENT….THAT IS CLEAR

Where do you get your donations from the UNION movement I bet. Are you just a puppet of the Labour government and the Greens. Own up and be straight with the public

Hi Donna, Just like you I am concerned about community, clean living and a good environment, I just disagree with the imposition of a carbon tax and am not convinced that whatever the level that man may be contributing to global warming, that it requires such extreme measures. Especially when what we do in Australia will have almost a zero effect for a massive cost. I believe there are better ways, more funding for research for a start. If this really is the greatest moral challenge we should be greatly increasing funding to find and implement new technologies.

I have researched this subject and have read the predictions and warnings of scientists and seen what they say has not happened. I have seen people who blindly accept what the scientists say, later to be proved wrong. If you want I can give you many examples. Even the modelling used has proven to be incorrect and overstated. I am suspicious of the timing of Garnauts statement last week particularly because of the timing. The government is finding it tough to sell it’s carbon tax so they try once again to scare us into falling into line. I find it very sus that treasury release their findings that the libs policy will all of a sudden cost up to $30 billion. To me it seems that we are being manipulated. I find it amazing that we are expected to just accept what the scientists say and that we are discouraged from trying to find out for our selves and called deniers for doing so. I find it interesting that since 1998 the world has cooled, or at least plateaued, which is verified by the IPCC.

I am not a member of any political party but have joined the Labor site (but not as a paid up Labor member) and contribute comments from time to time to their site. My favourite politician is Bob Hawke, he is a normal bloke, he was a the leader of the ACTU and is the type of bloke I reckon you could have a good chat to at a pub. He had the common touch. Fraser and Keating I despise the most. Howard I like second. Gough was let down by his ministers, who knows he may have been great if he had a good team. Rudd was exactly what Labor needed but Labor just hasn’t got their act together since they got in. The current Labor minority government is sending me back to the conservatives.

If you are able to have a discussion about global warming, I am happy to do so. I hate stunts like getups which really prove that an organisation can get a rally very quickly with many people because they have a big membership and that’s all it proves. I hate when AGW supporters latch onto every natural disaster and put it down to global warming as if they have never happened before. Every event this year has happened before and will happen again. What evidence do you have that AGW is happening to the point where we need to take severe action? Do you know what proportion of global warming is due to natural climate change and what proportion is due to man’s influence?

Can you tell me which lies you are referring to?

More questions for you, you mention lies, do you believe that 97% of scientists believe in AGW? Do you know why this is a lie and where that figure comes from? Look at Zimmermans work, you will find the truth is far from what has been told to us and I am looking at the report where that figure comes from. I will expand on this if you want to know and I can give you the web address where you will find the report, not a doctored report but the actual one. The number of the scientists the 97% refers to is actually less than 100 but have a look and see what you think.

I heard that woman too but the problem is that she could not say how much it would cost and could not even say what good it will do. If she doesn’t know that, what good is she? She is an authority and cannot even tell us that? That is what is astonishing.

Why do you believe in it Jill? A simple question but so many people who believe, cannot answer this simple question.

unfortunatly i dont beleive in climate change , nor do i think taxing people will fix it , what ever u wanna call it i think its just a scheme to grab money , i do support what get up does but not this time ,

ill remain on the side of anti carbon price … simply cause i cannot afford to pay a carbon tax ,

even if aus had a carbon plan it would do very little if anything to stop climate change …. all i see this as being is wealth redistribution …. and i beleive those who are poor choose to be .. i have no qualifications what so ever and have worked hard all my life and now ill be one of many people screwed over by this carbon price simply cause i work hard and have to support bludgers .

now that ive said my piece i ll wish u luck but i wont support u on implementing a carbon tax

cheers

@ Ali Fly,
You state that you are on a very low income. Therefore you will not pay one cent towards a carbon tax.So you can stop the martyr act.
In addition, anyone who links the earthquake and tsunami with climate change is being deceitful.
It never ceases to amaze me how people like you use natural disasters to further their cause.

I believe allot of people are jumping the gun with the Carbon Tax issue and it’s not their fault. Again we have a Government that fails and continues to fail on how to sell policy or yet again a lack of policy. The Prime Minister has spoken about how she wants feedback from the Australian people to form a Carbon Tax policy and yet with all the information available from the failed ETS there is still not enough information within the Government to release discussion papers to provide a direction for the Australia people to provide the information the Government is looking for. Instead of positive feedback to help formulate a Carbon Tax policy we are subjected to distractions (there is always going to be sceptics) shifting the spotlight away from what the Government is trying to achieve. Again, clearly a failure of this Government. I am not a sceptic but don’t believe in the direction the Government is trying to take the country. Nature didn’t take millions of years to bury the carbon so we could live in our present environment to have man remove it from where it is stored and blow it back into the atmosphere without some sort of reaction.

I believe we do need a carbon tax but to provide funding for research and development as it already has been established our present technologies will not address our present rate of carbon emissions and that is at the world level as Australia’s emissions are relatively minor (taking an overall perspective) on world polluters. Even if we did nothing about our emissions Australia’s percentage against the world is going to reduce as some large developing countries standard of living increases, so to their emissions. Unfortunately, politicians are going to use this to say we are effecting real change. The present rate of carbon tax proposed by Government to just do the R&D is about 3 times higher than what is needed but probable about right to set up an enormous bureaucratic government system to manage the income generated by a convoluted policy. It will employ allot of people, but in terms of addressing our emissions, very little in the short term and not much in the longer term. It will cost us billions of dollars (and a generous percentage of those dollars will be wasted as present and subsequent governments have squandered on other projects, this is likely to be no exception) to achieve very little. But will make some people warm and fuzzy to say we achieved a reduction, in world terms this will be negligible.

Will Australia reduce our emissions significantly to have a real affect on the world, clearly the answer is NO and all our politicians know this is the case. Can Australia be at the for front of developing the kind of technology to address this issue in a real way effecting the significant changes required working with other countries, yes we can. How? The government raises the money through a carbon tax and then provides funding to the private sector to do what they do best, developing technologies. Governments are renowned for failing in this area which the private sector is so good at. Will this provide employment opportunities? Yes it will.

In this case I do not agree with the action you suggest. Have been with you on a lot of matters but outdoing puffed up opiniated fools on radio whose listeners I have always wondered at is not something I would support even in a non-financial way. Cmon you can do better than that.

Hi,

I believe we need to do what is required to limit our impact on the climate.

But I would like to know how the government is going to spend the money that is generated from the Climate Change Tax.

I believe this is the major stumbling block for most Asutralians and is even being over looked by Getup.

Yes, lets tax the polluters, but at the same time, should we have guarantees in place that the money is used to deliver real solutions, that fix the climate issue, or are we going to allow another NEW TAX, that just gets gobbled up by government.

Where is the real accountability in this debate?

Come on Getup, lets bring the real substance to the debate to the people and the government not just an a surface campaign that focuses on, that if you don’t vote for the tax your not trying to fix the climate. The proper approach is, ok, lets introduce a tax, but lets also introduce the guidelines to where this tax will be paid into, that can only be spent on real climate solutions. Otherwise, we vote in an expense on the economy and end up with no real climate benefits or changes. But we do end up with a group of people that superficially believe they made a difference.

Let’s get real Getup and bring real climate change, by getting real guarantees.

George Peat
WISE Group of Companies

WHAT , NO INFORMED DEBATE?
HOW DISGUSTING.
IF WE DON”T AGREE THEN WE ARE CALLED SKEPTICS.
HOW UNDEMOCRATIC?
IF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE THEN THEY SHOULD DONATE.
IF THEY DO NOT BELIVE THEN THEY SHOULDN’T, JUST LIKE OTHER FAITHS.
NO ONE SJHOULD BE FORCED TO BELIEVE.
TEH SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED.
REMEMBER TO BE ASCENTIST IS TO BE A SKEPTIC.
DONT WORRY , JULIA IS RUNNING A FEAR CAMPAIGN OF HER OWN.

Sorry to rain on your parade Jill but EVERYONE is affected by carbon tax.
True, we must beleive the scientists. , but they only agree to disagree.
We need an informed debate void of political funded influence.
The people arn’t convinced because they are continually lied to.
I beleive that those who believe that donations to climate change will help, should donate.
Those that beleive ihat political donations won’t help, shouldn’t donate to the climate change fund.
.

Dear Mhewett

I believe that climate change is real because I trust the majority of the world’s scientists, who are disinterested, dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and are not telling us these “inconvenient truths” for their own amusement. Even those who don’t trust the scientists might agree that there is some chance that they are right, and if they are, we are in big trouble if we don’t act to curb carbon emissions (not to mention methane and any other greenhouse gases).

As for the woman on the ABC, it was not her position to tell us what a carbon price should be in Australia, or even if we should use that mechanism – that is for our government to decide. Each country must decide for itself. What good will it do? I’m afraid possibly not much, unless combined with genuine targets for lower emissions. But given what we stand to lose, anything is better than nothing – at least a starting point.

I truly think we need to be on a war footing to fight this challenge. I wish we had an orator with the powers of Winston Churchill to persuade people that their “lifestyle” is unsustainable. But if we won’t make the changes voluntarily, some sort of economic incentive might help. Even there I have my doubts. As a reformed smoker, I know how much people are prepared to pay to feed their addictions. It took a near death experience (not mine) to persuade me. Let’s hope the planet doesn’t have to nearly die before we give up our addiction to cheap energy.

I am sorry, but I totally disagree with Get Up’s Stand on Climate change, because I believe (along with all the other millions of people, including a vast number from the various scientific groups who hold to this same opinion) that Climate Change is running in a natural cycle, like it always has done. This is easily proven through history. As an example look back in the Climate history of Greenland over the last 1,000 – 1,500 years and many other such like examples on this planet.Any honest person who looks at and evaluates the Climate History cycles of various countries like Greenland, would be forced to admit, that man’s influence on Climate change has had very little if any effect on this so called “Global Warming” phenomena. For this reason I with many ohers reject this alarmist position on man’s influence over our present so called, “Global Warming” cycle, however I do emphatically agree that man should do all he can to use the resources we have on this planet in the most effecient and non-pollutant way we can to live in harmony with our natural enviroment. I also do believe that if we can develop better and more efficient non- polluting means of providing for our needs, such as: Power, Housing, Water conservation, Productive Agricultural systems and methods, Sea & Ocean Creatures harvesting, Forest and Timber management and production, ect we are obligated to do so and as a result pass on a better enviroment to our children and their children in turn.

Thanks for an excellent and very necessary initiative. Thank God for GetUp!

Unfortunately, the government (and, regretfully, I also have to say the Greens) have handled this so ineptly that they have repeatedly given free kicks to Abbott and his allies.

A suggestion:

All the scientific peak bodies in the country have strong and clear positions on the veracity of climate science. But the government’s dissembling and platitudes and the cacophony of voices from the extreme right are engendering increasing confusion and doubt in the community. Is it therefore time to bring the peak scientific professional bodies together in a national advertisement affirming the strength of the evidence and the urgency of effective action? Is this something GetUp can take the initiative on?

Thanks again for your outstanding work.

Best wishes, Ken McLeod

cocks

Climate change is inevitable, history has shown that the earths climate has cycles. Our pollution has not caused climate change, however we still need to substantially reduce it and respect the earths life giving resources. Paying a carbon tax will not change a thing, but changing the way we do things can. This means supporting all those with brilliant ideas to continue to live sustainably. Eg. My wife & I want to build a 100% sustainable home and the governments won’t let us. I heard Govt. wants to withdraw from renewable energy scheme?. To sumarise- Governments that do not support the real solutions must not be in control or represent the people in any country. The changes we need will come at a cost (like everything) but small in comparison to the cost if we don’t get on with it now. We need a completely new Governmental structure or brain wash our current politicians.The money collected for carbon tax will only stay with the government and the rich will keep getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.

Just received your email message and I’m disgusted.
You write: “This GetUp member – just like you – was worried because shock-jocks and ultra conservative groups like the ‘Australian Tea Party’….” blah blah.
I have never communicated to you or anyone else that I am like a GetUp member. I don’t agree with the carbon tax. We’ve got enough tax to pay as it is. If you were really wanting to support climate change you would be researching and campaigning to support energy alternatives and technologies. I only see little bits on solar on your site. Nothing on hydrogen, nothing on zero point technologies, nothing that’s the real deal. You’ve lost me.

I’ve been with GetUp on almost all of its campaigns and have regularly donated, but I have to disagree with this one. Much as I hate to in any way be on a similar side of an argument as Tony Abbott or Archbishop Pell, I am extremely skeptical about the current evidence linking human carbon dioxide emissions to alleged runaway global warming.

Several years ago I did accept the apparent weight of scientific opinion and believe that it was necessary to take urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, at least as an insurance policy. However the more I looked into the actual supporting studies the more convinced I became that at this stage this is no more than a pretty tenuous hypothesis, still a long way from being solid enough to act upon. On top of this, there is overwhelming evidence that some of the key arguments used to push the political agenda have been based on poorly based studies and even active manipulation and deception.

It’s certainly possible that we are currently in a mild warming uptrend – hardly remarkable, as we had had an earlier cooling trend, and climate is rarely unchanging. But whether this is caused by human-induced carbon dioxide emissions and can (or should!) be controlled by reducing these emissions now is still IMHO too weakly based a theory to divert enormous amounts of money and effort towards. There are many other possible threats to global human well-being that could also benefit from a massive injection of cash and effort for research and mitigation:
- war
- famine
- pandemics, potentially untreatable due to antibiotic resistance
- natural disaster (earthquake and tsunami of course, but also super-volcano, asteroid strike …), and probably more
With limited resources we need to choose wisely what we focus on.

James

Get a grip people and STOP talking about “future generations”. Start thinking about NOW, TOMORROW and the next day. Start thinking about your family and the needs of those around you, and reliant upon you TODAY. Nobody is going to say “Oh rememember Simon Sheikh – such a nice man who led the revival of our clean clean world and stopped global warming”.

GET A GRIP… Do you all have $$$$thousands in the bank? Every year you are on this planet you are supposed to be better off in terms of comfort, safety, and bank balance. If you have not doubled your bank balance each and every year for the past 5 years – YOU ARE WORSE OFF.

And it’s going to get worse with a carbon DIOXIDE tax. Start living for yourselves – not your great great grandchildren, because they are sure as hell not even going to have any emotion, memory, or respect for you. You will be nothing more than a name on a heritage listing.

Anybody who thinks they can fight and beat Mother Nature are fools. F O O L S. Moronic is the term used for anyone that thinks mere mortals can change the structure and balance of the Universe. Brainwashing comes to mind very quickly for those that believe they are more powerful than what is reality.

Please supply scientific proof that carbon dioxide produced by humans is causing climate change! There is tones of scientific proof to prove otherwise.

Stop using guilt as your weapon of choice to influence your members, you sound just like the government using emotional tactics rather than scientific fact.

The carbon tax is a farce. It will do nothing to help the environment. In fact it will do more harm as the added increase in costs to manufacture here in Australia will cause more and more manufacturing to be moved off shore to countries like China and India that don’t have the regulations we have to prevent the polluting of waterways and such.

Carbon is natural part of the earths cycle and what we as humans add is so insignificant its laughable. Get up needs to do some honest scientific research. you are promoting nothing more than a wealth shuffling program.

If you are serious about helping Australians start promoting a CIR (Citizens Initiated Referendum) Only with a CIR can we truly be sure of what the citizens of Australia want. I would bet my life that the majority don’t want a carbon tax, nor do we believe that it will make a single bit of difference to the environment.

Stop Gillard from reducing the solar REC benefits. that will do more for reducing coal mining through out australia and the world than a carbon tax will.

Get up is not helping the environment it is helping to do more damage by supporting Gillard’s Carbon Tax and forcing industry to countries that have no cares about the environment!

I am an admirer of the GetUp team and what you do but you have lost me on this one.
I am a working Environmental Scientist and have issues with what you plan to do with
this. I believe that the fact that we put a tax on people will not make one bit of
difference to the climate. Carbon is a necessary element for life and the CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere and well within tolerable limits and will continue to
remain there.

Having said that I do believe that we need to control polluting emissions into the
atmosphere but taxing a few big emitters in Australia and nowhere else in the polluting
world does not make sense or will make any difference to the atmospheric conditions.

I can provide all the scientific evidence that is required to back up what I have just
said. There is a lot of misinformation being peddled out there with no real science to
back it up.

I care about my children to lets hope they don’t put my children back to horse and carriage and candle light.

I have supported Get Up in many campaigns but I can’t support them with this. I don’t support the shock jocks either. Firstly I don’t agree with a tax on carbon – I think there is a far more intelligent way of dealing with all types of pollution and I would rather see tax incentives for cleaning up our act and doing the right thing. There needs to be room for someone with some commonsense and some brains to find a new strategy to deal with this problem. In fact this country could use someone with some brains and commonsense to do things differently in many areas – I could write a book on that. Anyway Get Up I think you are wrong and the whole campaign is dumb. Watch your egos, that is my suggestion.

The only problem with planting trees is that they require C02 to survive.

Hi Jill, thanks for replying to my question, one of the very few who attempt an answer. First about the woman and then I’ll comment on the claim of a majority of scientists.

The lady in question as I understand was the authority for Europe in these matters. It was in reference to Europe only (not Australia) that she was unable to say how much it would cost and how much it would achieve, pretty basic questions I would have thought. If she is the authority, why can’t she say how much will be achieved? Surely she would have some idea. It doesn’t matter what model she was using but just to be able to say something but she couldn’t. So if she can’t answer basic questions, what good is she as an authority? She literally had no idea, she couldn’t say the temperature will drop by 1 degree or half a degree, she had nothing.

To the claim widely published of a majority of scientists, let’s look at where that comes from. A student named Maggie Zimmerman attempted to find a consensus amongst the scientific community in relation to AGW. 10257 Earth scientists (not just climate scientists but geologists, etc) were invited to participate in the survey. 3146 actually replied so for one reason or another 7111 didn’t bother taking part, maybe they thought it just wasn’t important enough. 5% of the 3146 were actually climate scientists so about 157 climate scientists.

In the survey,”the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).” So only 79 out of 3146 were specialists in climate science.

Now 2 questions were asked. First, “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Now that’s a no brainer, considering the world was coming out of the ‘little ice age’ it is hard to comprehend how 10% of the scientists did not say the temperatures had risen. And these guys are scientists. It’s logical, little ice age means colder obviously, then the world became warmer heralding the end to the little ice age.

But question2, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Out of the 3146, 82% answered yes, a reasonable result I’ll admit, a majority yes, but not not as impressive as 97% is it? So where does the 97% come from. Well remember those 79 scientists that were mentioned? Well it’s 97% of them, so 77 out of those 79 said yes. Does that sound like a solid consensus? Not to me, the 97% of scientists claim is a lie, it is 97% of 79 specifically chosen scientists. Out of all the respondents, only 8.5% had anything to do with climate change. So how can we take the 97% claim seriously? That claim only drives skepticism and disbelief of climate science when you actually look at what the figures represent.

Now I am not saying humans are not having any impact at all but I am saying the extent of it is in question. You are accepting what they say without question and I think that is a dangerous practice. We should question, we should ask. I have asked how much of any global warming is from man and how much is natural climate change. I’m still waiting for an answer.

Why do you feel a Carbon tax is the right thing to do then if even if the head of the IPCC has said we are not HEATING? (sorry, typo)

It’s probably going to be the biggest con this century but not the biggest con ever i can remember in the 80′s the talk was all about acid rain and we saw how true that was but that’s the problem the people that support a carbon tax are to young to realise what it’s all about they are usually uni students that have never paid a bill in their lives and don’t understand the bigger picture, to them it’s fashionable to support the greens but they forget that tere is two sides to the story and that there is just as many if not more scientist around the globe that don’t support the theory of global warming infact some still believe we are heading for another ice age and by warming the planet it will put us in another ice age even quicker, what if they are right who knows we havn’t really had any debates about it we are supposed to believe what Al Gore is telling us “the inconvenient truth” even though he has absolutely no science backround at all.

Well said Realist…Someone with some knowledge of the supposed problem. The two questions the pro carbon tax people cannot answer is how much will temperatures be lowered by this tax and what it will do to our economy. Talk about brainwashed and deluded.

hey Get up,

if you want honesty and truth start with yourself.

Please call the carbon price a CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, it is a tax on carbon dioxide not carbon, I learnt the difference between these 2 elements in primary school, and I dont have a university education like you and your comrades.

Go on I challenge you, can you call it a carbon dioxide tax?

Remember the Y2K bug?

Hmmmmmmmmm a lot of VERY gullible people with insistence from computer “experts” (read “reputable Scientists”) poured a LOT of $$$$ into nothing.

Carbon DIOXIDE Tax will be Y2K Mach 2 – only many many times worse – and longer.

Will not be nice to see the elderly not able to afford electricity to run heating. Tongue in cheek I say : maybe that’s the Governments way of solving our “ageing population”.

( The estimated worldwide cost of fixing the Y2K bug, according to analysts: Cap Gemini America–$858 billion; Gartner Group–$600 billion; International Data Corporation–$300 billion)

I’m also an environmental scientist and one of the principles that underpins what we do is the “Precautionary Principle” and that in its self is enough of a reason to act. Besides, we as a species are clever enough to find alternative and non-polluting ways through renewables and enery efficiency…

When you think about it, it’s quite a destructive and damaging process to go through just to boil water (which is essentially what coal or urainum is used for to generate power). Someone at the rally mentioned that the Coal industry gets about $12billion worth of goverment subsidies and tax breaks whereas the renewable industry gets $1billion… surely the tax is a good way to redress this imbalance?

Lets get this Climate Change stuff in perspective. Climate change was happening before the industrial era began. In the past there were 3 main drivers of climate change, changes in the earth’s orbit, volcanic emissions, and still with us today is the changing intensity of the sun. As an observation the sun has just emerged from a longer than normal sunspot minima and now we have just had record rainfalls in Queensland. CO2 is just 0.38% of the atmosphere. Water vapour has the provides the greatest greenhouse effect.

i can’t believe the hate that there is in these comments. We can agree or not but why so much hate. We are not talking about taking away your house or your big 4WD we are talking about a couple of hundreds dollars a year and not for everyone but only for the privileged and lucky people that can be tax because they ve got a good income. I wish i could pay a couple of millions dollars of tax every year.
i think this tax is important more for the fact that it will change our way of consuming by making less polluting products more competitive. If we don’t take this path the Chinese ,the Indians and all the other countries that are choosing to do so will soon be leading in this type of technologies and we will loose the only chance we have to stay in the race of productivity. You don’t have to believe in ecology to support this tax you just need to see that the world is changing really fast and that if we are not changing too we are going to be left behind and miss the opportunity to be in the economical world of tomorrow.
Ps: sorry if my English is bad but it is not my language.

So what’s missing in your life as a result of the world spending money on the Y2K? I think the $ spent was worth the risk… Realist, I presume you don’t have insurance for your car, house, medical? For our family it costs nearly $4,000/year after tax on these three alone (much more than what the carbon tax is likey to cost me)….

Sorry “Safe but Sorry” but I don’t know where you get your facts from, but the coal industry is very heavily taxed by State and Federal Governments and receive no subsidies. Whereas the renewables can’t survive without subsidies because they are more expensive than coal fired power. The only way to reduce emissions is to make coal fired power much more expensive so that renewables can compete. This means much higher power costs for all.

Let’s put the Carbon Tax into a bit of perspective!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.
Let’s go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in, .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what the Labor Government calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers, till it’s 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that the Labor Government says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones.

And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Looking at the comments here, especially “Eternal”, even otherwise educated people are becoming sceptical of human influence on climate change – reputable scientists acknowledge the natural cycle, but have data showing the effect of human activity on this cycle and we ignore this at our peril! Yes, volcanic eruptions emit greenhouse gasses, but also emit chemicals which actually cool the atmosphere – this fact gets conveniently overlooked. Science goes on the weight of evidence, not individual pieces of research, and the weight of evidence is definitely “In” that human activity is hastening global warming. Scientists generally are not good at explaining things so we need good communicators to “translate” the data into terms everyone can understand. “Climate change deniers” are funded by powerful lobby groups with extensive funds, and they tap into people’s fear and the “hip pocket nerve”. So what can we do to counter this fear campaign?

I think we need to talk about the health of the planet in the same way that we talk about human health. Most people trust scientifically trained medical professionals with their health, especially when life-threatening illnesses appear, and choose to follow the prescribed treatment no matter how unpalatable. They might go to quacks and charlatans for minor ailments or when conventional medicine has no cure, because they use the same kind of “reasoning” appearing now in the climate change debate, pointing to evidence where scientists appear to differ. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method – scientists don’t look for proof because you can never prove their hypothesis is true, only that it is not so. All swans were white until Europeans saw black ones in Australia – they weren’t wrong before that, the weight of evidence (observations) was that swans were white, but this was proven wrong at the first sighting of a black swan. Medical science has likewise developed on the weight of evidence and thus has “failures” which actually progress scientific knowledge, but which quacks and charlatans use to promote people’s distrust of the medical profession. Fortunately the vast majority of people realise that medical science has a history of progressing human health and is too complicated for them to understand, so they daily put their lives and their children’s lives in the hands of health professionals. So why do we not trust scientists with the health of the planet? Partly because we don’t understand the science, but mostly because we don’t like the prescribed treatment. I don’t like the prescribed treatment much either, but just as I didn’t like the treatment prescribed for breast cancer, I took their advice and I am here today to tell the tale. Perhaps one day they will have a treatment better to my tastes, but I had to accept the advice currently available and I do not regret it. We only have one life to live and it’s too precious to leave in the hands of quacks.

The world faces such a “life threatening disease” now!. We only have one world, will we trust in quacks and charlatans? Some scientists who are usually good communicators are becoming defensive instead of explaining the science when they are confronted by these fear-mongers. Should they keep trying to explain the science in the way they’ve been doing, or fight fear with fear? As a psychologist I know that fear is a most powerful motivator. It’s working well for the “climate change deniers” so scientists need to stop trying to use reason to get people on board, and start use fear to counteract the attack of these fear-mongers.

Looking at the comments here, especially “Eternal”, even otherwise educated people are becoming sceptical of human influence on climate change – reputable scientists acknowledge the natural cycle, but have data showing the effect of human activity on this cycle and we ignore this at our peril! Yes, volcanic eruptions emit greenhouse gasses, but also emit chemicals which actually cool the atmosphere – this fact gets conveniently overlooked. Science goes on the weight of evidence, not individual pieces of research, and the weight of evidence is definitely “In” that human activity is hastening global warming. Scientists generally are not good at explaining things so we need good communicators to “translate” the data into terms everyone can understand. “Climate change deniers” are funded by powerful lobby groups with extensive funds, and they tap into people’s fear and the “hip pocket nerve”. So what can we do to counter this fear campaign?

I think we need to talk about the health of the planet in the same way that we talk about human health. Most people trust scientifically trained medical professionals with their health, especially when life-threatening illnesses appear, and choose to follow the prescribed treatment no matter how unpalatable. They might go to quacks and charlatans for minor ailments or when conventional medicine has no cure, because they use the same kind of “reasoning” appearing now in the climate change debate, pointing to evidence where scientists appear to differ. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method – scientists don’t look for proof because you can never prove their hypothesis is true, only that it is not so. All swans were white until Europeans saw black ones in Australia – they weren’t wrong before that, the weight of evidence (observations) was that swans were white, but this was proven wrong at the first sighting of a black swan. Medical science has likewise developed on the weight of evidence and thus has “failures” which actually progress scientific knowledge, but which quacks and charlatans use to promote people’s distrust of the medical profession. Fortunately the vast majority of people realise that medical science has a history of progressing human health and is too complicated for them to understand, so they daily put their lives and their children’s lives in the hands of health professionals. So why do we not trust scientists with the health of the planet? Partly because we don’t understand the science, but mostly because we don’t like the prescribed treatment. I don’t like the prescribed treatment much either, but just as I didn’t like the treatment prescribed for breast cancer, I took their advice and I am here today to tell the tale. Perhaps one day they will have a treatment better to my tastes, but I had to accept the advice currently available and I do not regret it. We only have one life to live and it’s too precious to leave in the hands of quacks.

The world faces such a “life threatening disease” now!. We only have one world, will we trust in quacks and charlatans? Some scientists who are usually good communicators are becoming defensive instead of explaining the science when they are confronted by these fear-mongers. Should they keep trying to explain the science in the way they’ve been doing, or fight fear with fear? As a psychologist I know that fear is a most powerful motivator. It’s working well for the “climate change deniers” so scientists need to stop trying to use reason to get people on board, and start use fear to counteract the attack of these fear-mongers.

Dear Simon
I am concerned about this campaign of yours – I support quite a few of the getup campaigns.

However, i feel that you do not have the facts on your side judging by the language you are using – ‘carbon pollution’ for instance. this is inaccurate – it should be carbon dioxide emissions, which is a totally different matter. but carbon pollution sounds a lot scarier and dirtier.

Are you aware that carbon dioxide is odourless and colourless – not if the pictures of cooling towers are used by propagandists are anything to go by – there the cooling steam, always backlit to make it look dirty, is used to conjure up a picture of dirty carbon instead of CO2, the trace gas 390 parts in 1,000,000 that we all breathe out with every breath we exhale. it is carbon, that makes soot, that is pollution, but that is not what this tax is about, it is about carbon dioxide, the very essential gas that all living organisms need to grow. are you aware that if CO2 emissions fall below 250ppm that all growth (trees, plants etc) would stop?

and are you aware of what the difference would be if all carbon emissions were to stop – ie, no power generated, no oil or petrol used? the difference would be 0.015 degrees of cooling, for a massive social cost of no jobs, no creation of anything. and that would only be in Australia, as all the production would be transferred to China, whose annual growth in emissions dwarfs anything we produce currently. and as their technology is not always as clean or efficient as ours, the minuscule amount we save would in fact be counter-productive as their equivalent production produces far more emissions.

Please read some other information other than that which you have been using. Go to the sources of that which your so.called right wing ‘shock jocks’ are quoting, you may be surprised to find some truth in it. Greenpeace et al are not always environmentally friendly.

yours sincerely

Caroline Kettle

BOB BROWN our prime minister & Julia Gillard his deputy has not thought the carbon tax through. What is stopping people from buying cheaper imported goods that do not attrract the carbon tax as they are not manufactured by Carbon taxed AUSTRALIAN MADE COMPANIES. AUSTRALIAN MADE products will only been seen in museums if this tax is introduced. Certainly somekind of tax or trading scheme should be introduced, but it should be thought through first to be effective in meeting its intent.

Who will have the guts to ask Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan and Greg Combet this question:
How much will this Labor/ Green “Carbon Tax” lower the temperature?
And,
How much will this Labor/Green “Carbon Tax” cost us the people, businesses and the Australian Economy?

Yes, Getup does receive donations from the Labor Union Movemnet.

Michael is this it:
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore?

ross garnaut is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Google his name and theirs in the same line, and you’ll see, that he’s on the payroll of the high-rollers. His name shows up in association with Lahir gold, who pollute in the mega-ton’s in PNG.

In my opinion the majority of the so called Canberra Press Gallery are in favour of this stupid carbon tax, that is why they are so concerend.

exxon mobil wrote the ETS legislation, and submitted it to the Australian government. The Greens policy, is NOT their own. The Greens, Labor, and GetUp! have NOT even lifted a pen of their own to write one word of the legislation which is being enacted. Google Exxon Mobil Australia Green Paper. You’ll see!

so much for not supporting “the polluters’ hey getup?

Yes, GetUp does receive lots of MONEY from the Labor Union Movement – $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Millions of dollars!

i hear the australian tea party managing director is an environmentalist who has handled the big cats of africa for the majority of his life! google australian tea party, and friend them on facebook! better watch out GetUp!, you’ll get fed to the lions !!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Well done with Saturday’s rally, GetUp team. Simon spoke very powerfully despite his cold, and the turn-out was really encouraging. The only caution I would note is that we can’t let Tony Abbott distort the debate as a question of taking climate action or not taking climate action. We also need to challenge Julia Gillard to take the kind of action indicated by the science, a level of action that Labor’s current commitments fails to match by a long way. We must also challenge Labor on the sceptics within its own ranks, including Martin Ferguson. Weak climate action on the one hand, and a championing of nuclear and fossil fuels on the other together present a grim prospect for Australia and the world. Gillard will only become credible when she heeds the science and this is truthfully reflected in a public campaign. Such truth, however, will pose the question of why Australia is not taking much stronger action. Our prime minister needs to act, not tie herself in knots with futile spin.

yes, realist. I have a big file on this Co2 scam! It is important though not to get “Polution mixed up with Co2.
Co2 is part of the photosynthisis and helps to create our oxygen and it is a plant food.
However, pollution is just that and needs to be controlled. if an industry is polluting, then it must stop it. I dont see how a tax is going to change the amount of polution that a particular industry may be emitting.
I am on face book and have some posts there.

On ya ! Kim. Well said. Putting up that example is the best way to see the real facts. Thanks.

Get Up says that they aim to bring participation back into our democracy. What garbage. You are trying to destroy our democracy. You demonise anyone who disagrees with you, thereby trying to silence debate. Apparently anyone who thinks the government shouldn’t tax the air you breathe is apparently a hard line shock jock. You say that if we don’t pay more money then our grandchildren will drown and the earth is doomed, and then when we disagree you call us fear mongers. Unbelievable, is this what our ancestors fought for?

yes Rebecca. How about Solar and Hydrogen!!! Solar for day and hydrogen power at night. As for Co2…… I like Co2 inmy drinks. It makes them more interesting and as a tree hugger, my trees like it too.

I used to work in the Latrobe Valley and based in Morwell… Let me tell you that what comes out of those smoke stacks isn’t dry ice that you’d waltz in!!!

Who’s talking about reducing reducing CO2 to 250ppm… that’s typical of the fear campaign from the Right. You can’t get rid of the CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere so it can never be reduced to 250ppm. You shouldn’t be talking about facts when you spew this sort of garbage.

In the past 100 years, we’ve had equal pay, machines, robots, computers, internet so why would the carbon tax and a better way using our finite resources suddenly kill off everything we’ve ever known.

I also am an admirer of the GETUP Team normally but I ask you to physically show me how ONE Dollar will help lower carbon on this planet it is UP to US to do it not because we give our taxes wake up people and by the way since when did Australians start importing Americans garbage knowledge I.E. The TEA Party to fight our battles either mentally, physically, metaphorically. My GOD the TEA Party are a bunch of Rabble Rousers in the USA . We Don’t need them or their name associated with Australia . WAKE UP GETUP TEAM

The people who focus on the lack of connection between taxing and producing an effect on the climate are the climate are

It appears that GetUp are the ultra rightwing Nazis pushing for fascist austerity in the form of carbon tax based on the Malthusian fraud of climate change. Anyone who doesn’t want fascist austerity is guilt of running a scare campaign. While those who promote the fraud of climate change supposedly are not running a scare campaign.

Ljr121018, you truly don’t know what you are saying and your statements have no validity because you are doing exactly what our government is doing and that is you are giving us no proof all you are doing is stating what you have heard from one side.
How about the 30,000 scientist and climatologists in the united states alone that don’t agree with climate change and global warming, what are they all wrong? After all they did all go to the same universities and studied the same literature.

So let me get this straight you agree to being taxed for the air you breath because that is were we are heading you see every time you breath out you are polluting the planet with carbon dioxide and they want to tax it, with no proof what’s so ever. All I know is that this all started when Al Gore came out with his video “the inconvenient lie” he made allot of claims but no real proof and let’s not forget he has absolutely no scientific background. So where does he get his information from? The same people the governments do from scientist that will say any lie to get their projects funded.

I find it ironic to tax the Citizens of Australia when we sell probably 100 times more coal than what we use and I’m just guessing to China. Think about it If Julier Gilied And her government truly cared about the planet wouldn’t they stop production and mining for coal and also stop exporting coal to China and the rest of the polluting world.

Look at the bigger picture the only way this tax can work and make that 0.000000000000000000000000000.1% difference to the planet is to make energy that expensive that we cannot afford to use it. At the beginning most of us will be struggling but because we are so addicted to all our material things and gadget will keep using the same amount of energy, then the do gooders and the tree huggers will start jumping up and down again because we are not reducing our carbon foot print, so the next step is to make energy so expensive that we use much less of it because we can’t afford it. Better start stocking on those candles now because they are going to triple in price they polute the planet to with carbon dioxide so technically they have to be taxed to and if you drink coca cola you better stock up on that to because guess what a can of coke has 1.4 litres of carbon dioxide gas in it actually all soft drinks do.

I hope the moderators approve the full version of the text I attempted to post here.

@ $4000 per year something tells me you are a bad risk. Yes I insure – 2 cars – which I own outright, house – which I own outright, contents – which I own outright… I do NOT have medical – I do not believe it is a “good” insurance risk. Premiums have run at about $3000 per year – which has been wisely invested for the past 10 years – currently worth around $267,000. Should get me out of trouble should any “Emergency” come up.

How about you?

So…. “We are not talking about taking away your house or your big 4WD we are talking about a couple of hundreds dollars a year and not for everyone but only for the privileged and lucky people that can be tax because they ve got a good income”

In 2 years time I hope you ask those closest to you if a $250 pa Government rebate has offset the increase in electricity, food, entertainment, health, transport, fuel, wage decrease, inflation, interest rates, tourism, agriculture, postage, electronics, data supply, school fees, prescriptions.

We actually ARE talking about the loss of a house or 4WD. Let’s assume for one moment that two incomes becomes one. Can all the committments be met? If so … for how long? Just think about about it. Actually sit down with pen and paper and work out how long YOU could survive. It’s easy enough to say “I’ll get another job”… Maybe…but if your current salary is $75,000 and someone is DESPERATE enough that they need income NOW to save the house and / or 4WD then any Company is going to push you aside for the $60,000 pa equal.

Your attitude is very selfish, considering a “couple of hundred dollars” means a lot to a Pensioner, unemployed or low income individual. You are a bigger FOOL if you think that rebates won’t be phased out, stagnated, or adjusted downwards.

Check out – over the past decades – how many 1st Home Buyers schemes there have been, solar rebates, check out when Keating got rid of Negative Gearing, look at the introduction of HECS. Fancy that – having to pay for education – which is one of the basic fundamental roles of a Government – to provide an education for it’s citizens.

Don’t you understand that whatever the Government giveth, the same or proceeding Government taketh 10 fold.

History NEVER lies – it becomes fact.

Twice.

Where is your proof to back up the validity of your claims? And if all you know is that Al Gore started this heaven help us!

I don’t profess to be a climatologist, but having listened to scientists whom I respect I do know that THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTES TO THE RATE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT WE MUST CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOUR IN ORDER TO SLOW DOWN THAT RATE.

The only carbon dioxide scientists are worried about is fossil carbon dioxide, not the air we breath out, so stop being ridiculous! But as I said I’m not a scientist, so I won’t muddy the waters by trying to refute your non-referenced, mostly ridiculous claims. I do however agree that we must make energy so expensive that we will be forced to use less of it – I might not like the bitter pill but I do see the necessity of swallowing it!

We also need to look at renewable sources of energy, but we will only do this if fossil fuels reflect their true cost – thus the need for a carbon tax.

AKA tree-hugger/do-gooder

Please back up your claim that CO2 concentrations will remain within tolerable limits? And for how long? And also where do you get the idea that Australia will be the only country putting a tax on carbon (I acknowledge that you did say people, but the tax is actually on big users of carbon) – China, USA, UK, Europe already have an effective tax on carbon, higher than Australia.

You acknowledge that we need to control polluting emissions – where do you propose we start then?

Do you acknowledge that the weight of scientific evidence is that human activity contributes to the rate of global warming and that we must change our behaviour in order to slow down the rate? If not, why not?

I agree with you that there is a lot of misinformation without scientific validation out there, so you should be helping people to understand the issues, rather than muddying the waters with political arguments.

I thought you said you were a scientist!!! Or was that politician? Or maybe economist?

Yes, lets do what you say and start living for today. Never mind about future generations, let’s just continue doing what we’re doing and let Mother Nature take her course! After all Mother Nature caused the plague, and humankind survived that without scientists’ intervention, so surely humankind will prevail. Let’s just throw up our hands in helplessness, throw a party and let future generations cope with the mess we leave them!

Three times. Only comments of this kind get through.

This is true, but there is a more important truth, namely that the climate change debate is a distraction from what should be a debate over geoengineering. Unfortunately the climate denialists are better informed on this subject than climate change activists are. One climate change activist group, the ETC group, succeeded last year in getting a moratorium on geoengineering passed at the UN Biodiversity Convention in Nagoya, but it is not being observed. I posted a more comprehensive analysis of this aspect of the situation, but the moderators are censoring it.

Actually Safe, Kettle never said anything about reducing CO2 emissions to 250ppm. Kettle made the point about the need for carbon dioxide and what the minimum level required is to maintain plant life. I suggest you read what was actually said first.

If they have data showing the effect of human influence on the natural climate change, how much is this influence? What is the percentage natural and what is the percentage from man?

hello my little naive’s
here we go again, Simon sheek you should getup and getoff!, but like all………, your trying to get a job.

I don’t believe so many people can be processed by so few, I said this before when you idiot labor people voted in this ridiculous government.

Australians would have to be the most naive, gutless and back would people in the world, I’v been through 70 odd in my travels, I suggest you get off your bums and go and have a look at some of these countries where these people are coming from, was not that long ago that these very people would tie their new borns leg behind its back so it would grow up deformed and make the best beggar, is this the people you want here

Boat people, carbon Tax, are you people for real? Y2K has nothing on this one, can not you people see it’s only a money grab, it’s a new tax to pay for 160 bil for schools in Indonesia, 500mill for new detention centre in Christmas isl, some ones got to payu for all the costs associated with b/people.
Please people open your bloody eyes, you are being done again.

I believe we should do every thing to stop pollution and make a better cleaner environment, I don’t think anyone would disagree. but to say the little microbes that live on this plant are killing it, please give me a break, clean up yes and we have been doing that over the last 10 or so years with scrubbers etc on industrial smoke stacks , please take the time to read up on the atmosphere you will learn a lot .

I call on all Vietnam vets “LETS STAND AGAIN” our fight is not over, we need to fight this bullshit thats going down in this country and we have a number of fronts to fight, let the gov know that we are a force, as for getup Getoff

NEW CARBON TAX

A major storm brewing over this issue .
Subject: NEW CARBON TAX

Let’s put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would
be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon
dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and maybe they
will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand
to gain by the ETS.

Here’s a practical way to understand the PM’s Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometer of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometer. 20 meters to go.

The next 10 meters are water vapor. 10 meters left.

9 meters are argon. Just 1 more meter.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.

The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left.
Just over a centimeter – about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the
atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in .18 of a millimeter.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer!

As a hair is to a kilometer – so is Australia’s contribution to what the
PM calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by the PM.
It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometer length is surgically clean. Except that the PM says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.
We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the
world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

My problem is not about the alledged global warming, it’s saying that this tax will fix it.
If people want a “small” guideline to what this CO2 tax is going to do to the price of gas and electricity.
Look on the back of your electricity and gas bills.
It tells you how much CO2. the company produced to supply you with gas or electricity in tons.
Its simple math’s to multiply that by whatever figure of the day they are saying.
Before the election the modeling was based on $25 a ton.
Last week Swan was talking about $44.
The day after Brown was saying $40.
Now they are talking about figures $93 a tonne and way beyond.
And for people who think that these companies will only add the current price of the day to their bills they are away with the fairies.
There will be charge to you by them to collect this tax for the government. They won’t do it for nothing.
Your service charges will still rise to maintain company profits but you won’t be “compensated” for that because it’s not part of the tax on CO2.
The whole reason for this insidious tax is to lower the world’s temperature.
And how much will it lower the world’s temperature with the billions of dollars it collects?
ZERO!
Be afraid be very afraid.

Let me first say that I believe in the climate varying over time. I also belive that to some degree man can affect the surrounding environment and it’s temperature.

Take a spot – any spot where trees are abundant and shade aplenty. Now, cut down the trees and put a building of heat absorbing and storing concrete and glass. Lay down heat absorbing black tar roads. OF COURSE the ambient temperature is going to change. A sea breeze is a sea breeze because there is no heat absorbing obstacles in its way. THIS is the way man has affected the local temperature. Temperature, climate, and weather are all different.

It is a known fact that we cannot make rain. We cannot have any influence over natural cloud formations. We cannot change the daily sunlight hours. We cannot change the rise and fall of tides. All part of the daily cycle. We cannot slow down, speed up, or stop time.

And our Government wants to tax us on what is IMPOSSIBLE to change – the climate? There is a marked difference between man made pollution and man made climate change through emmissions. We should ALL do our part in keeping our planet as sparkly clean as possible. Australians have done a wonderful job at cleaning our wonderful nation. Our waterways are crystal, our skies are smog free.

A couple of FACTS:

1) Of the 112 current comments – only 8 – yes eight – are supportive of GetUp and this current issue. That should tell GetUp that this really is an isuue that is VERY important issue to mainstream Australians.

2) Consider this:

A) If an air conditioned room has no people in it and is 21 degrees. Slowly one by one add people and see what happens to the temperature. When the room is packed – the air gets very stiffling. Does anyone not think for one moment that with an ever increasing global population, the ambient temperature is not going to rise?

B) The planet is a solid globe. Does anyone not consider that removing billions of tonnes from one part of the globe (Australia) and moving it to another place (China) is not going to create some sort of imbalance? What about the distribution of weight in terms of finished product – steel beams, washing machines, motor vehicles, even the inbalance of distribution of population growth. Take a bite out of an apple and see how well it rolls.

C) Man is but a “guest” on this planet. As individuals, we are all here for but a very short time. To put it in some perspective, have a look at how long it takes an Oak tree to reach maturity versus how long it takes for man to chop it down. Man cannot adjust time.

In closing, there ARE things we should do to cut pollution. We should look at the way we design cities and the distribution of populations. We should care for our planet – and each other. We should look behind us and see the errors of our ways. Our fore fathers were wise in creating sustainable environments farming etc.

Creating a tax burden will not solve any supposed “global warming” / “climate change” problem AT ALL. Adjusting the way we live our lives will.

The shock jocks have the baking of the big poluters? Aye are you living on the same planet? i guesse this is where the problem is you don’t understand the bigger picture most of us are not to concerned on the tax alone what we are concerned about is that the only way this tax can possibly work is to make energy so expensive that we can’t afford to use it, that’s were the problem lays. In other words you the consumer is paying x amounts of money per kilo watt of energy today and tomorrow that amount gets 4 times bigger in money which forces you to use half of the amount of kilo watts of energy that you are using at the moment, why would the big poluters disagree they are now making double the amount of profit selling us half of the amount of energy why would they fight it or be on side side of the so called shock jocks when with the help of the government they achive what they have always wanted and that is to rip off the consumer for more profits.

Um, let’s see, and how much money goes to the Liberals from big business ie the miners, tobacco companies, energy companies etc? A lot, a vast amount. And the Liberal party accepts every dirty cent of it.

This campaign from GetUp, shows their constituents what GetUp is really all about. As more people discover that GetUp is just a front for the Uber-Left and has nothing to do with the betterment of the people of Australia, rather just Social Justice campaigns, the more their membership base will decline.
GetUp / Green/ Labor, all want you to choose, Act on climate change or not, But that isn’t the argument. The argument is “Is a Carbon Tax in Australia the best way to reduce CO2, worldwide” . That’s the question. And the answer is NO.

Well said Realist. Love the comment “Don’t you understand that whatever the Government giveth, the same or proceeding Government taketh 10 fold”

What I find really, really amazing, is this already has started. Gillard and Swanny said ” Every cent raise by the carbon tax, will be paid back in compensation” For the people who dont understand that’s 100%,

BUT then we had this yesterday for the Govt Guru “Prof Garnaut told the National Press Club in Canberra about half of the revenue earned from the scheme should go to a package of tax cuts and boosts to welfare”

Already we have the PM telling us its 100%, Garnaut telling us its 50% , next week it could be 25%, and a week after the introduction, probably ZERO.

Lets try this again because the moderators won’t publish my comment maybe because I had some links in it to prove my point.

Dear Mr Simon Sheik and Get Up,
If we are so misinformed on climate change and the shock jocks are so wrong don’t you think you have a Judy to your members wether we believe in climate change or not to inform us on the information you have and show us some clear scientific proof from both sides, believers and non believers so that we can debate it to come to our own conclusions or are you going to act like the government and tell us what is good for us with out any proof or any debate.

Do you realise there is a great number of scientists and climatologists that think otherwise, there is a great number that seem to believe that we are heading for another ice age, I’m not saying they are correct but how do we know if it has never been debated, what if they are correct and by cooling down the planet brings us to and ice age allot quicker, after all up until the late 80’s the scientific community and believed we where heading for another ice age.

What ever happened to the talk of acid rain or maybe you don’t remember about that because you where just born or to young, well I can tell you because I was in my teens, it was a lie one of the biggest lies of last century and now they are doing it all over again. Have you ever read your history books to see that history is being repeated.

Do you understand what is really happening they want to tax the air you breathe after all every time you breathe out you are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
Did you know that every time you open that can of coke you are releasing about 1.4 litres of carbon dioxide into the air or maybe you don’t breathe air or you don’t drink any soft drinks or beer?

Go back and read your history books, this time in this current age, that we are fortunate to live in is the best climate conditions of all time these events we are experiencing have come and gone thousands of times before in a much bigger scale.

The planet is a living entity and needs carbon dioxides to survive and has been creating carbon dioxides for thousands of years on it’s own through volcanos earthquakes and natural occurrences the reason why the planet has slowed down and we don’t have as many natural disasters as the planet has seen in the past is because Humans are producing carbon dioxides through industries in other words we are helping the planet survive. I know it may seem that we are having allot of natural disasters but its only minor compared to what the planet has seen in the past.

So read the facts first before you try to recruit more members to the Global warming lie instead of looking for the truth. Global Governments want to punish the public with a carbon tax even though they give us no other choice or any solutions even though there are other forms of clean free energy that we should be using, why don’t Global Governments put all their efforts in developing free clean energy devices that already exists instead of trying to punish their citizens over something they have no control over, well I guess the answer to that is that its free, if you don’t believe me got to you tube and type free energy or magnetic power, if these people can develop these back yard inventions surely the Governments with the help of the science community can develop something even better.

Finally stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution and stop trying to recruit more people into the global warming lie, because all of the awaken peasants know what this is really all about it’s all about Revenue and the destruction of the human race through poverty and disease.

Well Said, and they call the people that don’t believe in climate change and global warming as using scare tactics when all along they are doing the same they are trying to scare us into believing this lie and supporting a carbon TAX.
Shame on you Bob Brown

Well done Kim, That has to be one of the best explanations I’ve ever seen.

Exactly when did Carbon Dioxide become a pollutant and how, so everything I was taught at school was wrong as well.

Words fail me!!!! On second thoughts I do have a few words – this is obviously from someone who does not understand the carbon cycle (look up Carbon cycle on Wikipedia). This person is also a conspiracy theorist who believes that governments around the world are intent on human destruction. If these comments (here and below) are a sample of the “informed” climate-change-deniers’ “proof”, what has happened to all their neurones? I thought we were having a debate here. Sorry, I didn’t realise this was a forum for for the uninformed to reinforce each others’ magical thinking! I’ll butt out then and leave you to it!

And who told you that big business is supporting the liberal party, i believe they are suppoting the labour party after all it’s the labour party that is giving them a licence to print money when electricity and petrol doubles in price even though we are using less because we can’t afford to buy it anymore they will be makeing bigger profits even though they are selling much less why would big companies be concerned i believe they are in favour of a carbon Tax.

I suggest you read about what happened in Ireland and what happened to the greens after Ireland introduced their carbon taxed, it almost sent Ireland into bankruptcy.

Common Mate they also need water why don’t we tax water to or has that already been done. Oh I know, why don’t we direct all the co2′s into our water supply it may counter act with all the fluoride and chlorine that is in our water which is killing the human race, but that’s right I forgot fluoride and chlorine is good for us and it’s good for our teeth so that’s never going to happen.

I believe this is a direct quote from the Kettle… “the very essential gas that all living organisms need to grow. are you aware that if CO2 emissions fall below 250ppm that all growth (trees, plants etc) would stop?”

The inference is that we should keep spewing CO2 to prevent the levels dropping below 250ppm

It is true, we should be having a debate IF a carbon tax on the Australian people which will not reduce worldwide CO2 should go ahead. Both parties agree we need to reduce CO2, what the debate is how. Greens/Labor believe the wealth redistribution method. ie taxing everybody but only rebating people on low and middle (Which is debatable what actually middle income is). Of those low and middle income levels, will they change their behavior to consume less energy, if they get back every cent the prices have gone up? (Which is the whole point of the exercise, isnt it?) Will they vote for a party that they rely on to keep their food cold, house warm, lights and their 55″plasmas on. You bet your life. Throw in a couple of comments on how the ‘Low Income ‘ people will have extra money in their pockets under a carbon tax, and U see how the Greens/Labor are now trying to encourage the lowest common denominator to vote for it.

Libs plan is direct action funded from the budget.

Most people have been railroaded into believing debate is about “Doing something or doing nothing”. This simply isnt true. They both want to do something, the debate is if a TAX is the way to go.

You and your left leaning mob should join the ALP that is the Australian Liars Party.

Try to get this through your thick heads we don’t want to pay more tax for nothing.

It has nothing to do with saving anything it is just a new tax to give more money to the Australian Liars Party to waste on more projects that they can’t administer.

The carbon dioxide tax is biggest con going , the climate change science has not been proven one way or the other there are many different views on this.

So in closing pull your heads in on this tax we dont need it and it wont change a thing.

I don’t exactly understand what you are trying to say but I understand you are trying to call me a conspiracy theorist just because I think different to you and I don’t want to buy into the lie of Global Warming. Then you tell me to go into a site called wikipedia which has absolutely no merit what so ever, it’s not an encyclopaedia even though the name sounds like it it’s a site were common even un educated people can go in and enter what ever they like and you call me uninformed. And to answer your question yes you thought right we are having a debate and I’m sorry I fail to meet your standards of an intelligent debate, and if you think global warming deniers
Are magical thinkers well then so be it because I respect your opinions because after all you have a democratic right to express your opinion.

China is closing one dirty coal mine for health reasons as it emits high dosages of Mercury. It then build 2 new coal fired power station a week. With this Japan nuclear power plant emergency China is likely to cut its own nuclear power plant investment and increase further its coal power plants.

Please tell me how taxing carbon dioxide emissions in Australia will lower carbon emissions. The industries that produce emissions here will transfer themselves to China and emit there.

Taxing is not the way to go.

As Ross Garnaut explained last night, this carbon tax is just a redistribution of wealth. Tax the rich poluters and compensate the poor users.

Above I meant to say China is closing ONE DIRTY COAL FIRED POWER STATION not coal mine

If you have an open mind to trying to understand the confusion and reasons why people are skeptical about climate change and the carbon tax, read through the comments here and you may actually learn something. What have you added to the debate? Insults? Maybe you can share why you believe in what some scientists are saying, but they all don’t agree. What information and specific references do you have?

Well put Kim I must have missed your post you have just given us the best explanation, I’m very impressed, now how do we get Julier Gilied to read this and please explain?

The truth is, Cathy, that whatever we may achieve by a carbon tax will be almost zero, it will be so negligible it is a joke that our politicians are even considering it. We are not the problem in this country. What they want to do is punish countries which are contributing negligible amounts while the major polluters such as China go on their merry way and continue doing the same thing they have been doing for so long. If we are to do anything, it should not be until countries such as China, the USA and India get on board because otherwise it will all be for absolutely nothing.

China does what it wants regardless of ‘world opinion’ and the term ‘world opinion’ isn’t even accurate because many countries do not care 1 iota. So what will happen if the Carbon tax gets in is that we will suffer for nothing because the worlds big polluters simply won’t follow.

Actually no, Waltzing, Current emissions are obviously higher than 250ppm. If we want to reduce carbon emissions, there obviously has to be a point at which we say, hang on, we are not producing enough Carbon. We would know this if trees and plants are not growing I guess. There has to be a balance, isn’t that what all the greenies and eco people say, balance? So that raises the question that if we need carbon and we have been stopping carbon, how long should we continue to take anti carbon measures? The earth needs carbon, how much should we reduce the amount of carbon? What is the amount that is the goal? Is it 300ppm? 350ppm? What is it we are looking for?

‘changing the way we do things can’

I would argue that in Australia, what we do will have an almost nil effect by virtue of the fact that our emissions as a part of the global emissions is already very small. The only ones who can have a major effect are the big emitters like China and the USA. Unless they act, there will be no noticeable effect.

And that brings us back to one reason why getups rally is not as significant as the smaller one. It’s one organization (getup – pro carbon tax) with big financial resources and abilities to contact hundreds of thousands of people versus a small group of people (anti carbon tax) with no affiliation with any organisation, have only personal financial resources. and no big emailing list to get people organised. Big difference.

Can you ask the climate scientists that you respect, if the climate change that they claim is happening, what proportion is due to man and what proportion is due to natural climate change? Also ask them to comment on what the head of the IPCC said in 2008, that since 2000 that the earth has not been getting warmer, plateau was the word used I think, it hasn’t got hotter basically, and since 2008 it hasn’t got hotter either. So if that is what the head of the IPCC has said, then why do people persist in claiming the warming is still going on?

If the idea is to get people to change the way they consume and the lower to middle income class gets compensated, why would they change their consumption? If I get more money from the government I will still use my air con as much as I want during the summer, I will still drive my car as much. Why would I change? To feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that although I am hot in the summer at least I am changing the global temperatures by 0.00001 degrees? So the rich pay and the biggest polluters pay/ Well if I am rich I will just pay the extra, afterall if I am a nillionaire, what’s an extra thousand or 2 or 3. If I am a big polluter I have passed the cost on to the consumer so I don’t care, I’ve already recovered the cost.

Where is the incentive?

How about you answer some questions about climate change? You guys have to realise that the only way to get them to go along with you is to be truthful, to give clear answers and to be able to resolve concerns.

Example: AGW believers say that storms, etc will be more frequent and more severe. There is no evidence of it. Bob Brown claims the qld floods are a result of global warming only to be refuted by the CSIRO. (Does Brown have any credibility at all)

Why can’t they just say well at this point there is nothing in the weather that has occurred to show that extreme weather events have been more frequent or worse than in the past. We believe at some point they will but at this point they haven’t.

Why can’t they just say that rather than lieing and talking as if events such as the floods or the japan earthquake have never happened before. It is the lieing and deceit people hate. Be honest and maybe we may follow but stop trying to deceive to get what you want.

Am I wrong in what I have said?

Exactly, most of us don’t disagree with cleaning the air we breathe from all of the pollution and we probably don’t mind a small tax to do it but to punish us for using the only form of energy that we have been given by making energy that expensive that we can’t afford it is outrageous. This is the point that the pro carbon tax supporters aren’t getting no one minds paying something to help the planet but it’s the way they want to do it and yes they are saying they will rebate the poor but for how long and will the next government honor this promise and is it a promise can we really trust them Juliar Gilied said under this government there will be no carbon tax Wayne Swan said the libs where using this to scare people and that they where making it all up that his government were not going to introduce a cabon tax so how can we trust anyone anymore they are constantly lying to us about everything.

Pristine Waterways??? Really??? where? The Yarra, The Murray or one of the local creeks??? I’m really starting to wonder about your claim that you’re an Environmental Scientist.

The only thing that I agree with is that we are a “Guest” in this planet, and Guests should be treating the place they’re staying in with respect and leave it in no worse a state than they found it in… I don’t think that mass felling of trees and rainforests for farming and development, spewing gases of all kinds in to the atmosphere, dumping tonnes of waste and mining in all corners of the globe is what good “guests” should be doing.

I’m waiting on the moderator to OK my reply to your reply to Jill of one day ago. I’ve read through the posts going back a week or so and the only thing I’ve learned is that many people on this forum believe that there is no scientific consensus on AGW and that is patently not true, so needs correcting. My reply to you if accepted will explain why. If it is not accepted I will try another approach. As to insults, are not the words FOOL, GULLIBLE and NAIVE insults? These words are found repeatedly in the posts below.

I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve insulted you Nikkoh. I respect your right to express your opinion too.
With regard to Wikipedia I agree that not everything there is correct, but I disagree that it has no merit – studies for and against the accuracy of articles appearing on Wikipedia have varied, but mostly compare Wikipedia favourably with well know encyclopedias. And one study done in 2010 found that reviewers in medical and scientific journals found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage was of a very high standard, and often of a higher standard than well known reputable media organisations. Wikipedia does acknowledge that inaccuracies still do occur and encourages readers to provide corrections. I use Wikipedia as a first “port of call” as the references cited are useful for further research.
As for my conspiracy theory comment you stated “because all of the awaken peasants know what this is really all about it’s all about Revenue and the destruction of the human race through poverty and disease” so I assumed from that that you thought there was a global conspiracy of governments to destroy the human race – I’m sorry if my assumption was incorrect.

NEW CARBON TAX

A major storm brewing over this issue .
Subject: NEW CARBON TAX

Let’s put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would
be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon
dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and maybe they
will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand
to gain by the ETS.

Here’s a practical way to understand the PM’s Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometer of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometer. 20 meters to go.

The next 10 meters are water vapor. 10 meters left.

9 meters are argon. Just 1 more meter.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.

The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left.
Just over a centimeter – about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the
atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in .18 of a millimeter.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer!

As a hair is to a kilometer – so is Australia’s contribution to what the
PM calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by the PM.
It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometer length is surgically clean. Except that the PM says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.
We’d laugh ourselves silly.
I had this sent to me and I’m passing it on to you Simon

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the
world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

I got the email passed to me though some of you may not have read it yet

I heard on the Today Show this morning , OM Julia Gillard proudly state that, “The Government has provided $1.7m to the disaster fund in Queensland with more to come over due course.” Well done KJulia. Now explain to this little black duck who at this point is one angry bastard how all of this works:

THE TOP 8 RECIPIENTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S AID DOLLARS IN 2010-2011

Indonesia – $ 458.7 million

Papua New Guinea – $ 457.2 million

Solomon Islands – $ 225.7 million

Afghanistan – $ 123.1 million

Vietnam – $ 119.8 million

Philippines – $ 118.1 million

East Timor – $ 102.7 million

Cambodia – $ 64.2 million

TOTAL = $ 1,669 million -to be given away in 52 weeks

..but wait, there’s more… !!!!!!!

• Australia provides approximately 150,000 tonnes of food aid every year—about $65 million—to

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Chad.

• In 2010-2011 the Australian Government plans to spend almost $4.4 billion on development assistance to under developed countries.

SO….. Ask your local Member how come 2011 Queensland flood victims get “$17 million so far”?

When insurers, such as Allianz and CGU, provide cover for storm damage but EXCLUDE FLOOD from their home and contents policies.

SUGGEST, we EXCLUDE them from our Shopping Lists ????

And now Gillard will give nearly $500 million for Indonesia’s Islamic schools which are largely moderate in outlook but there have been pockets of radicalism that have produced

terrorists in Indonesia, most notably the cleric Abu Bakar Bashir’s school in Ngruki, central Java, where some of the Bali bombers studied

1:STOP THE OVERSEAS AID NOW AND DIVERT THOSE FUNDS TO

QUEENSLAND.

2:WHEN QUEENSLAND HAS BEEN REBUILT AND BACK ON ITS FEET,

THEN WE CAN HELP TO BUILD MORE ISLAMIC SCHOOLS

OVERSEAS. AND HERE’S AN IDEA:

3:MAYBE WE CAN ALSO TEACH ABU BAKIR’S DISCIPLES TO SING:-

“KOOKABURRA SITS ON THE OLD GUM TREE”,

“GUMBAYAH”,

“WALTZING MATILDA”

AND

“I STILL CALL AUSTRALIA HOME”!

we ask why do we need Carbon Tax????
, how else are we going to pay all these bills, and I still have all the boat people to house and feed yet???????

Nikkoh….. anything that is against Simon sais will be deleted, we all know that

here is another good Co2 reading that I have been sent

SO MUCH FOR GILLARD AND HER CARBON TAX –WILL SOMEONE TELL HER TO GET REAL –

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes – FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time – EVERY DAY.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in thePhilippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.

Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

·My problem is not about the alleged global warming, it’s saying that this tax will fix it.
If people want a “small” guideline to what this CO2 tax is going to do to the price of gas and electricity.
Look on the back of your electricity and gas bills.
It tells you how much CO2. the company produced to supply you with gas or electricity in tons.
Its simple math’s to multiply that by whatever figure of the day they are saying.
Before the election the modeling was based on $25 a ton.
Last week Swan was talking about $44.
The day after Brown was saying $40.
Now they are talking about figures $93 a tonne and way beyond.
And for people who think that these companies will only add the current price of the day to their bills they are away with the fairies.
There will be charge to you by them to collect this tax for the government. They won’t do it for nothing.
Your service charges will still rise to maintain company profits but you won’t be “compensated” for that because it’s not part of the tax on CO2.
The whole reason for this insidious tax is to lower the world’s temperature.
Right?
And how much will it lower the world’s temperature with the billions of dollars it collects?
ZERO!
Sought of derails the argument for a CO2 TAX. Don’t you think Simon?
Be afraid be very afraid.

Thats really interesting Leigh. So my Q1 power bill says 3.5T.(Bill total was $600/q) . So at $25/t its a min of $87/q or $350/year , at $40 its a min of $140/q or $560/y. If they take about $100/t that makes $350/q which is over 50% increase. WOW, now all I need to do is work out my gas, and add 7c to the current 1.50c/l petrol price, (Extra $8 per week, $420/y), tack on an extra 10% on food as transport costs and power will go up. ( We spend $200/pw, so thats extra $1000/y) I can instantly see this whole thing is going to cost me about $2,000 per year. + Add another couple of interest rate rises because it push up inflation (say 0.5%), $3200. My calculations are a carbon price of $25, will cost me about $5200, per year.

I look forward to your reply. If it was about the 97% of scientists I can’t see how you can dispute that 97% is a lie because I used the actual report where that figure comes from. 97% is incredibly misleading and when the statement is made 97% of scientists is made they for get to tell you that refers to 77 scientists out of a small group of 79 climate scientists. There is definitely not a settled scientific consensus and what I wrote shows it. 97% of scientists most definitely do not believe AGW is having a significant effect on the global climate.

As for climate change it is always happening as it has for millenia. If you have information that specifically addresses the question of the proportion of man influenced climate change and the proportion of natural climate change, I am interested too. Too many times it said AGW is causing climate change as if that is the only factor. This is a distortion of the truth. There is more than one factor and I am interested in finding out what proportions of the different factors are. I await you reply.

Thank you GET UP and the people of Melbourne. It is time to fight back and show these shock jocks that they are inciting a very dangerous messgae of self destruction. The planet is in trouble and no matter what the cause of its problems, unless we re- think our place on this planet we will not survive. Simple really.

Now come on, be honest! USA does not have a carbon tax except for just few states, one being California, an economic basket case. Europe is not doing terrible well either, many basket cases there too.

China does not have a carbon tax. You are straight out being deceitful. China is considering one but as yet have not introduced a carbon tax. You are not telling the truth on purpose or you have not researched what you have said in the hope that gullible people will believe you. China may introduce one next year (would you like a reference?) but as they are building a new coal powered station everyday, I will believe it when I see it.

What is your reference to back up your claim that the USA (as in all 52 states) and China have already implemented a carbon tax?

Hi Nikkoh, this is one of the problems I see with the carbon tax. I have redone it here so you don’t miss what I have already said down the page.

If the idea is to get people to change the way they consume and the lower to middle income class gets compensated, why would they change their consumption? If I get more money from the government I will still use my air con as much as I want during the summer, I will still drive my car as much. Why would I change? To feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that although I am hot in the summer at least I am changing the global temperatures by 0.00001 degrees? So the rich pay and the biggest polluters pay/ Well if I am rich I will just pay the extra, afterall if I am a millionaire, what’s an extra thousand or 2 or 3 if I am on $200000+ pa in income. If I am a big polluter I have passed the cost on to the consumer so I don’t care, I’ve already recovered the cost.

Where is the incentive? .

Can you see what I mean, in this idea of a carbon tax, why would anyone change?

No it wasn’t deleted and to be fare to Get Up and their team they did put it up untouched and unmodified it just took time or i just missed it we shouldn’t be attacking Get Up Just because we don’t agree on this issue, because thank god for sites like Get Up which are a voice for the peolpe.

19.3.11—Reply to Michael, Antonietta, Nikkoh &Michael (again).
Sorry for the delay. You deserve answers to your questions. The rallies referred to in the blog posted by Kelsey were not about whether climate change is, or is not, real but about a proposed price on carbon pollution. The lies to which I referred were those put out by the shock jocks, the Coalition and the Murdoch press that sought to frighten the gullible into believing that everyone would be paying “a great big new tax” if such a price was legislated. They even dreamed up a figure of $300.00 per head per year on electricity charges, which they preached as gospel, even though no price on pollution has yet been discussed, let alone set. As they well knew, there will be discussions throughout the rest of this year before any plan is put forward. Thus, either they can predict future actions, (not even speculate on possibilities) or, they told egregious lies, as I stated.
At no time, did I address the facts, or otherwise, of Global Climate Change/Global Warming, or its causes. I, as are you, am not qualified to pontificate on what tens of thousands of qualified scientists of many disciplines have found. I read the Climate Depot report as you requested and saw that 1,000 scientists disagree with the general consensus. Such matters could never result in a unanimous decision.
Nikkoh, the price on pollution is an economic tool. It is designed to force businesses in a market to look at ways to maximise their profits by finding a way to avoid the tax. Those that do so will succeed over those that don’t. Many businesses in many countries are already competing in this way as many countries have already begun to try to reduce the effects of pollution. The leaders of our big polluting companies are not stupid. They are motivated solely by profit and will do whatever it takes to maintain it, including even doing the right thing, when all else fails.
I hope I have helped by expanding on my post.

It seems the moderators are not going to publish my reply to you Michael so I will try another way. You are using a straw man to make your point about consensus with the one survey you are quoting. I had put in a link to a paper called “Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes and published in Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. In case it’s the link that is preventing my previous reply to you being published I will try replacing the .s with (dot) and the :s with (colon) and see how we go. http(colon)//www(dot)sciencemag(dot)org/content/306/5702/1686(dot)full

Well that seems OK. As most people won’t bother going to this site I will paste quotes from the paper below.

“Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.”

“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].”

“IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].”

“Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).”

“The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).”

“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

“Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.”

“This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.”

The paper concludes “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

Now Michael, if your definition of consensus is 100% agreement of every scientist working in the field of climatology then clearly this paper will not convince you. But the dictionary definition of a consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, so according to this definition there is scientific consensus on AGW.

As to percentages it seems that a scientific consensus has yet to be reached on this. However here is a link to an article which I think you may find interesting http(colon)//monthlyreview(dot)org/080728farley(dot)php (again I have replaced the : with (colon) and the .s with (dot)). This article, The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming by John W. Farley, outlines the cases for and against AGW and in conclusion states “The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all.” Personally I prefer to trust the scientific community on this rather than to try to work out for myself what percentage is anthropogenic is necessary for us to take action – I don’t have the expertise to work this out for myself, but clearly the scientific peak bodies do. I don’t try to work out for myself what medical treatment to use and by the same token I don’t just trust my GP either – I research what the scientific community consensus is and take that advice. Clearly the scientific consensus is that we need to reduce the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, so I accept that advice.

The tax on carbon emissions is another issue entirely and I don’t intend debating that here, as most people on this forum do not believe that there is AGW and still believe the myth that there is no scientific consensus on this. I can see that I was naive in thinking I might be able to add anything useful to the debate here, so this is my last post. It’s rather like being an atheist in church (people on this forum actually use terms like faith) so I prefer to direct my energy elsewhere.

It seems the moderators are not going to publish my reply to you Michael so I will try another way. You are using a straw man to make your point about consensus with the one survey you are quoting. I had put in a link to a paper called “Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes and published in Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. In case it’s the link that is preventing my previous reply to you being published I will try replacing the .s with (dot) and the :s with (colon) and see how we go. http(colon)//www(dot)sciencemag(dot)org/content/306/5702/1686(dot)full

Well that seems OK. As most people won’t bother going to this site I will paste quotes from the paper below.

“Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.”

“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].”

“IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].”

“Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).”

“The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).”

“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

“Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.”

“This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.”

The paper concludes “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

Now Michael, if your definition of consensus is 100% agreement of every scientist working in the field of climatology then clearly this paper will not convince you. But the dictionary definition of a consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, so according to this definition there is scientific consensus on AGW.

As to percentages it seems that a scientific consensus has yet to be reached on this. However here is a link to an article which I think you may find interesting http(colon)//monthlyreview(dot)org/080728farley(dot)php (again I have replaced the : with (colon) and the .s with (dot)). This article, The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming by John W. Farley, outlines the cases for and against AGW and in conclusion states “The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all.” Personally I prefer to trust the scientific community on this rather than to try to work out for myself what percentage is anthropogenic is necessary for us to take action – I don’t have the expertise to work this out for myself, but clearly the scientific peak bodies do. I don’t try to work out for myself what medical treatment to use and by the same token I don’t just trust my GP either – I research what the scientific community consensus is and take that advice. Clearly the scientific consensus is that we need to reduce the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, so I accept that advice.

The tax on carbon emissions is another issue entirely and I don’t intend debating that here, as most people on this forum do not believe that there is AGW and still believe the myth that there is no scientific consensus on this. I can see that I was naive in thinking I might be able to add anything useful to the debate here, so this is my last post. It’s rather like being an atheist in church (people on this forum actually use terms like faith) so I prefer to direct my energy elsewhere.

Just a few points Ljr, first thanks for a more informative reply than most who just say accept whatever scientists say and you are a nasty denier if you don’t believe. You actually are able to add to the debate. The reason I mentioned the survey by Zimmerman was because that is where the warmists get the 97% of scientists from. One of the reasons I distrust warmists is because they latch onto results such as the 97% and spread it about as if it is applicable to all scientists. I found it particularly deceptive because it only referred to a group of 79 scientists whereas this information was not passed on to the general public because it would damage the warmist argument for global warming. If they said 4 out of 5 scientists I would be more likely to accept that but they weren’t happy with 82%, it was the more the better so they grabbed the 97% and to the average person, the view was given that 97% of scientists believed in AGW and that all warming was due to us polluting this world. It is the deceit I hate. It’s not even that I expect that 100% of scientists would agree, it is just the deceit and it is that deceit that makes me skeptical of further claims made by the scientific community.

I have also made the point that in 2008, the head of the IPCC admitted that since 2000, the global temperature had not warmed. It hadn’t cooled but it was not warmer. This fact is not mentioned to us. As we know last year, it was cooler than normal and in the Northern hemisphere, they had record snowfalls. It was not hotter and has not warmed since 2000. I believe that facts such as I have stated have been withheld from the general public because those who want to push the AGW barrow, don’t want anything to come out that detracts from the goal of lowering global temperatures but by not telling us it implies that there is something to hide.

I don’t deny that there may be some influence on the global temperatures due to man but I also recognise that the climate changes naturally too. It is the extent of each that interests me. Is mans influence negligible or a lot? Is there any way to tell? It is the wild claims of climate scientists that are later shown to be incorrect that persuades me the scientists may indeed be wrong. It is the stupid statements from people like Bob Brown that reduces my faith in him as well as AGW to low levels. To me Brown has no credibility.

The paper you mention was from 2004 and opinion, I dare suggest, in the scientific community has changed. Even Lovelock mentioned that it is impossible to predict conditions 100 years from now. He also said that some things are 1 in a thousand years and changes are in that category too. I will look at the links but I hope you understand that many scientists and people like Brown do the AGW cause harm through stupid evaluations on normal climatic events and also through silly speculations such as in the northern hemisphere that within a few years from 2000 that children would not know what a white Christmas was like. They shoot themselves in the foot. High flyers like Gore and Flannery who go about preaching to us about cutting emissions but at the same time are flying in planes, using big amounts of dirty electricity and adding to pollution more than the average person. It was said a few years ago that Gore used the electricity in his home in 1 month that a normal household would use in a year. It shows how hypocritical they can be. And Garnaut? While he was preaching to us about the danger to the barrier reef from climate change, Lihir Gold, the company he was chairman of, at the same time was dumping tonnes and tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean destroying a huge area of the ocean floor. This is the guy that is preaching to us about global warming and reducing emissions and pollution. he was responsible for a lot of environmental damage in Papua New guinea. Hypocrite!

I’m sorry Ljr but the hypocrisy of some of these people is infuriating. It also frustrates me when people say they believe but they can’t say why they believe other than saying they believe the scientists but the scientific community is becoming more divided as time goes on. But in fairness to you I will look at your links (I have bookmarked the first one to look at this coming week) and give honest consideration to them. Thanks again for your reply.

EFFING Brilliant Particle and LOVED Kim’s explanation! I just unsubscribed to Get Up after this, they have lost all credibility in my eyes over this issue.

The tone of most of the climate sceptics and anti carbon tax revolters is so nasty.
About 97% of climate scientists believe our carbon emissions are a cause of the greenhouse effect.
One of the two high profile climate sceptic scientists in Australia is a director of mining companies and the other is a geologist whose university department gets most of its funding from mining companies.
And it is not hard to disprove all of the misinformation that is propagated in the media. Like CO2 is good for plant growth,yes it makes plants grow more vigorously but they become lanky and weaker and toxins increase making animals that eat them sick.
Through out history the evidence of people that only look at each other to reinforce their beliefs because they want to believe in their own ideology is legend.
Do we ever learn from history,I think we do but some never learnt the lesson in the first place and others have short memories.
Does anyone know if there is a counter rally to the anti carbon tax rally in Canberra wed 23rd march at noon.

Why not reveal how much of Criminal Ross Garnaut is? Do as i say, not as i do.
If the science was settled on carbon, then why drop global warming, and make it climate change when its cooling according to some.
This tax is a grab at more money, and wont do anything for the environment. If you wish to help, then be the change to see the change.
I and my Labor and Green friends are against this grab at more money and control by governments, and will be supporting no carbon tax.
I asked the Greens facebook; what have they done for the environment? one had done something out of many.
Pathetic, that people think a tax will do the job. This tax is a govt control, away to get more Govt jobs, and support the UN or NWO.

The Greens policies are dangerous? They object to back burning, removal of trees etc … that created fuel that fueled the massive fires in Victoria. How many homes were lost, how many lives lost, how many still suffer. Many still suffer mentally in those areas, and i point the finger at the greens.

Like Jill, I agree that the rally was fine overall, congratulations again to GetUp….but two points occur to me.
1. The minimal coverage in the Melbourne media was NOT fine! I don’t think this was entirely due to the disaster in Japan. Some thinking needs to be done–what do you need to do to attract media attention?
2. There was a major bite out of the demographics at the rally–plenty of youngsters up to Uni student age, plenty of oldies around and past retirement age, but people in between these ages were to my eyes notably absent. What needs to be done to convince these people that climate change concerns them, and that they can do something about it?

most of them are climate change deniers

Global Warming Lie please!!!! its carbon producing industries that want to stop this tax- nothimg more/nothing less !!

No evidence?

Mr Micheal ,why is nearly every major scientific body endorsed fully or partly the findings of the IPCC . Name a one peer-reviewed bit of research endorsed by national ‘peer body of scientists’ that that doesn’t support AGW

Climate change is a farce to charge a fee to breathe. Do some bloody research before jumping onto bandwagons.
You are being manipulated to encourage people to willingly give up their wealth and freedoms. What little we have left.

Retail electricity prices will rise 40% and 4% pa. My business competes with offshore online, places that fly goods in carbon tax free. (FLY) (Yeah, carbon footprint!!!)
Never mind, I have already decided to close, along with 10% of my customers in the last 3 months. Compensation wont bring my wholesale prices down. I expect 50% of my customers to close in the coming year, and this tax will make it even more likely to be more, by the time it comes in.
There goes those jobs. Way to kill the retail sector, way to kill Australian made. This live option of compensation is an option and a joke, people will only spend it on cheap goods because Australian made will be hit, Australian made can not compete. My Anti Carbon TAX stand is not about Liberals or Labor or Greens, its about Australia. More money can actually help the environment, look at Bob Brown just donated his land, but he was lucky to have land. Lucky to afford it. As a gay man, who wishes to help social needs and give back, then do not steal my money. No way do i trust any political party with tax revenue.

31000 scientist from IPCC etc … said carbon has not be proven. Labor lies, UN lies, NWO lies. If Liberals did the same, I would say Liberal lies. This is not about political parties, its about Australia. Get up, your feeding the lies.

Isn’t it ironic that at the election Labor did their best to scare people into voting for the libs because the liberals policies would push up prices? Yes a carbon tax will not raise prices, will it.

One of the biggest lies about the carbon tax is that the biggest polluters will pay. Does anyone seriously believe that the big polluters will not pass the tax on to the consumer? Tax is a business cost, if your costs rise, you charge more. In that way we all will pay more. Compensation? From this government? How will they make sure the tax comes out of their profits and not from inflating prices from the big producers? How can you legislate what profits a company is allowed to make? Do you go by percentage? Do you monitor prices which go up due to inflation anyway? How rigorously will they check companies? Will a whole new arm of government have to be formed to ensure compliance? This is such a complex issue and based on the track record of Labor since 2007, does anyone really believe they are capable of successfully implementing a tax where there is no incentive to cut emissions? There is no incentive for business, they pass on the cost, no incentive for low and middle income taxpayers who the government claim will compensate them, hence no incentive to change, no incentive for the rich who can easily afford to pay extra so an extra few hundred or a couple of thousand for carbon based products will not change consumption habits. Where is the incentive to change carbon based consumption in the Carbon tax?

Yes, I want to attend the Canberra rally, is it happening or not?

GetUp is supposed to be an organisation that supports the battler. Instead, you have turned into a bunch of unmitigated morons, just like your Labor colleagues. Since when is GetUp involved in censorship? You have failed as an organisation, and people can see right through to your roots – the ALP. It’s bloody shocking to tell the truth these days, isn’t it GetUp. How about you GetUp and rack off!

Realist. What you have written doesn’t make sense to me. There are 30 other countries in Europe that have already put a price on carbon. China is investing heavily in reducing their carbon emission. So why do you say ” nowhere else in the polluting world” I assume you mean than no one else is putting a price on carbon? Or do you mean than we should put a price on their carbon emissions? Sorry but this just doesn’t make sense.

My understanding is that the intention of the carbon tax is to enable low polluting technologies to compete with high polluting technologies. This will have the effect of transferring investment into these technologies enabling us to compete globally given this is what is happening overseas.

Until this happens, industry is not going to invest in wind or solar farms or develop other new technologies – as they can’t compete.

Of course a reduction in emissions in Australia won’t impact the rate of global emissions. I have never heard the government say that this is what they are trying to achieve. Have you even listened to their arguments? Did you watch Q & A the other night? If not, why do you claim you can speak with any authority? If so, why are you saying something that is not true?

I don’t think you really are an environmental scientist… perhaps just a disgruntled Liberal voter that is frustrated that they didn’t win the last election.

I watched this site with interest. But you are filthy liars. Even assuming the absurd half-truths and scare campaigns run by you clowns has a degree of success (and I am a conservationist), when you tell absolutely deceitful lies in an attempt to promote your campaigns you are no better than Bob Brown, Julia Gillard and the rest of those fools. The great news (and only saving grace of this tax) is the people who will suffer the most under it are the poor misguided fools who support it. Now if you guys want to talk about the environment (and not tax) and what we can do to preserve and rescue it, you have my attention. In the mean time, F#$k Up and go away…..

GetUp are wolves in sheep clothing. When they came along singing the social justice cord, and a lot of Aussies listened, me included. They did have some good progressive idea’s but there has always been something not, quiet right. This Carbon Tax just goes to show what U guys are actually all about. GetUp is an extreme left wing organization with a socialist agenda. They dont care what its members want, all they want is to push the progressive party policies and think they can take their members with them. Unfortunately this wont work. Most intelligent Australians know the answer to problems lie in the individual and not by an over bearing Govt. They know Govt MUST be limited and controlled. They know that everything needs to be questioned.

GetUp have crossed the line with this debate taking a stand on a Tax which will not reduce CO2, and cost every Australian a lot of money. They have tried to separate the debate between septics and believers BUT the debate is about if a CO2 Tax is right for Australian population. The answer to this is NO.

Coal mining companies do not receive any subsidies. The tax concession on diesel fuel, which I think they are talking about, applies to all primary industries, and would apply to wind and solar as well. (Level playing field?) Subsidies are monies paid to a company to assist it in producing its output, and this does not apply to coal mining companies nor to coal consuming companies. The aluminium industry negotiates a discounted power supply because it is a huge consumer of electricity. (They call aluminium, solid electricity) If they can’t access low cost power then they will close down and relocate overseas.

Sorry, but there is so much misinfomation here that it is difficult to know where to start. China is increasing their coal fired power supply by 600GW over the next 5 years, adding to their 670GW already, but they will close up to 200GW of outdated coal power stations. Australia’s total coal fired power supply is 25GW. I don’t know whether anyone reads the newspapers anymore, but we in Australia are being kept secure from the world recession by China buying our coal (both coking and thermal) and iron ore. You won’t see a carbon tax in China any time soon.

Scientific opinion does not support the climate change alarmists. Computer models (that have to be modified each year because their predictions are wrong) are not science. There is no scientific evidence to support these claims about man made global warming.

After reading the comments below, I have to ask the question:- Why is Getup still supporting the carbon tax? The majority of members comments are opposed to it, so if the organisation is democratic then it should shelve this campaign and move on to something that has true support.

Hi,
I do not support the current campaign, not because I am a climate change sceptic but because I believe the felicity and strength of the parliamentary and institutional processes is paramount and these things are being undermined by dishonest and manipulative political behavior. All politicians lie but to make it part of one’s election campaign and then backtrack almost immediately is a joke and not to be tolerated.

I want a proper debate that encompasses all sides of the argument – I am not convinced that money merry-go-rounds and “taxing the big polluters” is a mature and well-thought out answer to our woes. The idea, I thought, was to reduce consumption,and or build new, efficient, alternative energy sources I really can’t see that a tiny carbon tax based on a a notional price of $24 a ton is going to do this (or anything if compensation rewards current levels of consumption). There are no easy, quick-fix solutions to this issue and I don’t want to see our economy wrecked by premature, inadequate “solutions” that are designed to appease the Greens and appeal to no-brain activists who have one trick up their otherwise empty sleeves.

I would consider joining a campaign that promoted a proper debate but not this polemic, thanks, Marcus

The carbon tax, like the name says, it’s a tax. The government has killed off the insulation scheme, killed off the solar scheme, halved the LPG rebate and suddenly this new tax is going to solve the environmental problems? As far as I can see all it means is less money in my pocket and more in the government’s coffers to waste while doing nothing for the environment.

The big companies are just going to pass on the costs and do very little. If we complain about a 25% hike in power costs, we’ll be told it’s because of the carbon tax. A proper carbon trading scheme would mean the money would go to carbon negative ventures and would be regulated by market demand, and not just a tax for government coffers.

If you’re going to campaign for something, campaign for something that achieves something, not another tax.

All these pro carbon tax supporters are idiots! Forget pro/anti climate change arguments. How does a tax help the enviroment?
A tax takes money from people and sticks it in government coffers. It doesn’t plant trees / recycle waste / save dolphins. It does however support the re-elect Julia campain and perk improvements for pollies. You should start calling it what it is, the “Government Slush Fund” tax cause thats where your money is going.

You clowns are busy supporting a tax from the same government who axed the insulation scheme, axed the solar scheme and halved the LPG rebate.

If you want to help the environment push a carbon trading scheme, not a tax!

GetUp needs a system for the members to vote on matters rather than following Simon’s personal beliefs. Carbon tax does nothing for the enviroment other than making electricity, fuel and the other necessaties of life so expensive, We’ll go back to sitting in the dark, shivering under a blanket because we can’t afford to turn the power on.

I vote GetUp scraps supporting this stupid tax.

In response to “Demonsfan” have just donated some money to Getup and only want it used to support the Carbon Tax.

I am concerned about the dominance of the right in the Australian media at present. It is almost as though the left has either faded away or no longer has an avenue to present the opposing case. I believe in a fair and democratic Australia and it is incredibly healthy to have a fair debate from opposing sides but at present the media is only supporting one argument which appears to lack any clout or substance or dare I say it FACT! It appears to be increasingly difficult for a right of centre ALP to sell the concept of a carbon tax with the fear of maintaining a minority government. I believe the Government will earn greater respect from its citizens if it begins to take risks and support its new policies with a more direct and aggresive marketing manner.
But first, we need the left to have a voice in Australia’s media once again. The opinions of ill minded right wing shock jocks has to be rained in and the call for balance to both sides in the media needs to exist again!! All we ask for is balance between both sides to make a fair and negotiable decision which will present greater benefit to us all!

People have asked the question, it’s just that Gillard won’t answer it.

Actually you are wrong. There is NO consensus on whether man is contributing to catastrophic climate change, furthermore, the evidence suggests that CO2 follows temperature changes rather than driving them, which completely torpedoes the whole alarmist argument. The latest research indicates that the sun is probably responsible for changes in temperature, in fact, you can Google John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC and read what he has to say.

Support for a carbon tax makes sense in the short term. I might prefer something else but in reality companies will not do anything unless they can make a competitive advantage out of it. The tax approach makes it possible for companies to be more cost competitive by reducing carbon emmissions.

The Abbott approach just gives tax money that at present is providing services, to companies that will just keep taking it till someone wakes up and says no more. The outcome will be nothing except lost services.

I do agree with the earlier contibutors that GetUp members should vote instead of using blogs as an indicator of a membership wide response. Most people do not spend all day on blogs making coomment, they can vote remotely from an email questionaire without arguing to no good point. After all there are only 200 or so entries on the thread, is that really representative of 480,000 + members…. I think not.

I was appalled by the disrespect shown by those who rallied in Canberra today, which is why I am donating money to the cause for the first time since I have been involved with getup, rather than just signing petitions or informing others. The attitude of the conservative media (and their on-air shock jocks) is really scary – this is not a simple issue for many people to understand and to misrepresent the facts is mischievous. Personally, I would prefer cap-and-trade to a carbon tax, but the Prime Minister must do what is possible. And it’s not for want of trying – who was it who kept rejecting legislation in the last parliament?
Thank you – but one email is enough – today I got four from you – all the same!
Patsul

If you listen to guys like Les Twentyman, who has spent the last 30 years working with the most impoverished people in Australia, and yes they exist, he will tell you that he works with families who cannot afford to put sandwiches in their kids lunchboxes now – let alone when any other tax kicks in on top of it. He will tell you that offering rebates (that Gillard currently is) isn’t going to help these families find the money to start with. A rebate is a reimbursement at the end of the year. Whether or not you agree with the MMGW science (I don’t), I think we should all be humanitarian. There are a great many people today in Australia who cannot afford to pay this tax.

I’m not a carbon producing industry anymore than you are. I want to stop this tax.

That’s right Alicia. The families you protested with weren’t the families who cannot, right now, afford to put sandwiches in their kids lunch boxes and, for whom, this tax will kill of all or any hope for them that remains.

Jamie, you are wrong. Ali Fly will pay through the nose like everyone else. Then, once a year, if Ali Fly can prove he or she qualifies, the Government will rebate him or her. Do not confuse rebates with tax cuts. Rebutes are reimbursed AFTER you find the money to begin with.

Actually you are not the silent majority. You are the vocal minority. More than 50% of Australians do not believe that man is causing catastraphic climate change. Read newspoll.

Sorry, but whilst I firmly believe in climate change at least contributed to by mankind, and am a firm believer in reducing our impact on the environment, I do *not* believe that a Carbon Tax is the right path for us to take.

Just because it is the only option on the table does not make it a good option. Just because Labor say that it is the path we must take does not make that so.

All that will happen is that the cost of producing carbon pollution will be passed down the line from the emitter to the consumer. And unless there are real alternatives available (can I get electricity generated from renewable/sustainable/environmentally-friendly sources and avoid the tax?), then all this does is hurt the end user/consumer and creates no incentive for dirty producers to clean up their act.

And even if I did believe that this carbon tax would help, there is still a real lack of information around where it will be levied (will primary producers be exempt? Will those who produce the basics for life – fresh foods as per the GST exemption – be exempt? Will petrol be exempt?), and around how the money collected will be spent (will it be used *only* to fund development of green technologies such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and dare I say it, nuclear (let’s not kid ourselvea here – we are apparently implementing a carbon tax because we have to think globally, but won’t use nuclear power locally because it’s apparently dangerous, “toxic and outdated”, if memory serves, but we’re happy to sell it to other countries where apparently the toxic and outdated technology is fine – just not in our backyard- what happened to thinking globally?) power, or in cleaning up some of our dirtier industries (converting dirty coal power plant to “clean coal” – as much as that’s a bad joke in itself), or, heaven help us, once again subsidising the installation of solar power installations for residential/business users to cut their reliance on the existing electricity infrastructure, which would help prevent emissions climbing (or at least slow it down) as we grow as a population?

As it stands, I cannot support the Carbon Tax, or support GetUp’s support of it. All I can see coming out of it is pain for our country ad we end up with yet another bill to pay for no real gain other than for the govt to have more of our money in their pockets (which, let’s be honeat, they couldn’t be trusted to manage.appropriately if their political careera depended on it.

Anti Carbon Tax does not equal climate change skeptic (let’s not stoop to other words in place of skeptic) right wing, or Liberal Supporter. Anti Carbon Tax at this stage means anti bad or poorly thought out/defined policy. It may also mean anti abuse of balance of power.

What I’d also like to see is GetUp focusing on positively putting the message across. Hijacking other rallies to shout down those who disagree with us goes against exactly what GetUp should be standing for – the right for people to stand up and have their say.

Firstly, I’ve read your various comments and agree with what you say. Secondly, I have a mother, she’s 86 years old, and there are people in her elderly clubs, her peers, that do not, I repeat, do not turn on heating in winter because they cannot afford to pay their electricity bills now – and this is before a carbon dioxide tax. They are already entitled to discounted energy prices. Gillard and Brown don’t need to incent these people to use less electricity. They have all the incentive they need already.

I don’t understand the order in which comments are presented. Surely the latest ones should be first. I have been through the list of comments and there does not seem to be any logical order. eg Mark put in a comment a week ago but he is above Chris who put one in 2 hours ago???? Why.

GetUp is a professional activist movement funded by the unions to the tune of $1.2M plus anything it can raise from members via its email campaigns. The interesting thing about the above post is that much is made of the “shock jocks” “murdoch press” etc, yet little mention of Fairfax and ABC both of which are clearly biased to the left. As Australia is a democracy, with more than one opinion, it should be celebrated that both left AND right views have media that is sympathetic to their views. What is the problem with it? Why is it scorned? The absence of both sides of the story would be a dictatorship – not a democracy. Freedom of speech is one of the most endearing things about life in Australia – but freedom of speech applies equally to all sides of the political spectrum. Final thought, PMWilkinson1 refers to “rich industry lobby groups” – I ask, would he or she be including unions as part of that classification?

I agree. It is a stupid tax.

No it doesn’t. It shows that Australia is a democracy. Julia Gillard went to the election with a clear mandate “no carbon (dioxide) tax”. She said it. Repeated it. Goose said it too. She has no mandate for introducing a carbon dioxide tax. That is why it should be taken to an election. If the ALP and GetUp are sure about this, what’s the problem? Take it to an election, get the voters to decide.

“We are not talking about taking away your house or your big 4WD we are talking about a couple of hundreds dollars a year and not for everyone but only for the privileged and lucky people that can be tax because they ve got a good income.” Wrong. You are absolutely wrong. For some families, you are talking about taking away their cars, their homes, their livelihoods. There are families in Australia, right now, who cannot afford to feed their kids. Compensation, once a year in a tax return, is not much help when each week you need to pay your mortgage or grocery/petrol bill. This will send some smaller businesses to the wall. You have the chairman of BlueScope saying it will cost tens of thousands of jobs. What is the value of a rebate on your tax if you don’t pay tax because you’re unemployed? It’s one thing to support the carbon dioxide tax – you are absolutely entitled to have your opinion – but at least understand that not everybody is in the same financial position as you may be and understand that the cold, hard reality is that this tax will move manufacturing (and tens of thousands of jobs) to China where the same taxes do not apply.

Answer this.
- How much will it cost?
- What will the world’s temperatures be reduced by?
- When will you be taking it to an election to get a mandate.

Simple as that.

Maybe Simon could learn something from people like Gandhi and John Lennon. This doesn’t sound like you are encouraging a peaceful protest, rather that you are inciting anger and hatred, possibly that could even lead to violence. Have you heard of ahimsa? It also sounds like you are trying to stop freedom of expression of those (including me) who don’t wish to be burdened by yet another onerous TAX which will, as we already know, do nothing to help the environment. It is simply a money raising con, engineered to make money for some fast growing companies. It is looking more and more like social engineering to cripple small business and the poor.

This is not a “price”, as Simon copies directly from Ms Gillard’s page, but a very real TAX which will do nothing at all to save the environment. In the Far North, companies stand to make big profits from these so carbon credits. It is a con. For example, we were approached by one of these companies for a contract over our forest that mostly include mature trees; as most people would know young trees absorb carbon at a high rate but older ones do not; this is part of the con, just a money making racket. We did not sign any contract. Get Up is starting to sound like the voice of a fear mongering totalitarian regime. Be careful, Simon, not to become the thing that you are fighting against. I suggest you sit down with a little book written by Eknath Easwaren or Buddha, maybe take a few days off even. The comment that Simon wrote in the subject column is childish and not befitting of the mission statement of this organisation. I have cancelled my subscription to this newsletter which is a shame as it has supported, in the past, some very worthwhile campaigns. I do not support propaganda, nor the snuffing out of freedom of expression, the essence of democracy, nor do I condone bullying of any kind. Lying is not commendable either.

Google John R Christy or Prof R Lindzen and I believe you will find what you’re looking for.

No its been and done, finished.

Why do you call people “climate change deniers”? Is it some voguish term or something? I suppose you wouldn’t mind being labelled a “climate change extremist” which conjures up images of fanatics? Enouranois , I haven’t met a “climate change denier” as you call them. I suspect they don’t actually exist. I’ve met however many people that oppose a carbon dioxide tax, even question the so-called science that man is responsible for climate change, but everyone I have met, without exception, believes the climate changes and they say it always has.

“but the Prime Minister must do what is possible.”???
A carbon trading scheme isn’t possible but a tax is??
Your chipping in money to promote a tax because a carbon trading scheme isn’t possible???????
Save your money cause your going to need it when you get taxed dolt!

I heard membership of the TEA party has reached 100 000.

Most people here don’t want the carbon dioxide tax. How come Get Up is supporting it?

Or you could have kept the money and used it to PAY the carbon tax.

I support a trading scheme, not a tax. A trading scheme would create new businesses and the price regulated by supply and demand. Excellent opportunities for farmers to take part instead of getting shafted by coles and woolies competing against foreign imports. A tax is just a tax. The money goes to the government to do with as they please. An emission scheme, the money goes to the environment (via farmers and businesses).

Now on the other hand I don’t agree with the planet dying and all the tripe the greens put out. Now China’s growth in CO2 every ear is greater than the entire of Australia. If we go to zero emissions immediately, China’s growth cancels it. Then look at the pacific volcanos. They put out more then the entire of mankind.

I think man has an overinflated sense of his own importance.

Yes I too was appalled by some of the placards at this rally but I think there is genuine concern out there about the effects of this tax on people on lower to middle incomes which should be sensibly acknowledged. I am also concerned about your use of the term Carbon Csars and believe that again there are genuine concerns about the effects of the tax on some industries which will flow through to jobs eg Bluescope in Wollongong. I am not naive enough to believe all industrialists are bad and all activists are the source of all knowledge. And Julia did lie.

May be some genuinely concerned people turn to the ‘shock jocks’ because no-one else will listen to them.

While I have supported Get Up’s campaigns in the past, I am concerned at your polarising approach to this issue and resort to abuse and over simplification so you don’t have my wholehearted support this time.

Dawn

PS Before I am labelled as a sceptic, denier etc. I fully endorse the need to lower our use of fossil fuels, decrease our reliance on oil, increase renewable forms of energy and live more sustainably.

Yeah isn’t Getup supposed to be non-partisan. Simon needs to listen. It was like this with Abortion too. Completely ignored everything that the majority of people were saying. Why are we even here? I thought we could do some good, but it seems we’re just being made into Simon’s puppets.

No don’t be worried! Just watch ABC and SBS and channel 7. We still own them and they still say all the stuff we want them to.

Well as a precautionary measure, let’s not wreck Australia’s economy so that we still have a bit of money left to support the environment and adaptation.

Yeah they have carbon trading and stuff in Europe. I was reading a few days ago that it’s all controlled by mafia and stuff now.

I guess the other thing is that because I’m unemployed, I can go to as many Get-up protests as I like, but the no tax one seemed to all be people that know nothing about protesting – like just family people and old people and stuff.

I can’t believe that GETUP are actively campaigning to “censor” radio……what the hell !!!!! come on guys you becomming exactly what you wanted to stop.
And as far as climate change goes….it has always changed. thats why it is not called “global warming” anymore, because if you do you research you would know it is NOT happening…..

I wonder if she won’t answer because she doesn’t know or because she does know and it’s not good.

thats pretty funny…..hope that was a joke?

I am a very strong supporter of many of the issues that GetUp champions. But I am very troubled by the lack of intellectual and scientific rigour behind anything that I read here in support of a “Carbon Tax”.

The proposed “Carbon Tax” has caused me, for the first time to question whether GetUp has become captive to Government spin.

Surely GetUp should be the forum where ALL the options are debated with vigour and rigour, rather than being a patsy for a mono dimensional Govt view that is more informed by focus group than fact or science.

I, for one, am yet to hear or read a single compelling, scientifically valid piece of evidence that suggests that raising the price of electricity/food/petrol/beer/bread/milk/chicken/bacon/weet-bix/water for Australian families will alter the temperature of planet Earth.

Time for a reailty-check GetUp. This forum should be a mature discussion about the options for addressing climate change, rather than dictating to everyone that the incredibly unimpressive Federal Government has got the answers.

Give me some evidence that you’re on the right track here and all is forgiven.

Until then I am afraid…. the credibility of this incredibly worthwhile enterprise is at risk.

EZ

Kidding right. Labour has all the money and advertising to push brainwash their beliefs on the rest of us. I’d be much happier with a referendum or general election. Put the card on the table, fully explained…no hidden double truths.

Yep, u want the tax, u pay it for me too thnx. The majority of people do not want this tax and do not believe it will reduce pollution.

No Carbon tax, no ets. is just another commodity for big business and politicians to profit in.
The coal industry doesnt bother me, I’ll go off grid and do my best to set up everyone else that way. The government is not going to make the money they n big business friends think they will. This tax will not work, is not necessary and is a grab for cash. It will not reduce pollution. The rebates and such to renewable industry etc is a rort, I will be setting up with a system for $5000 that will provide all the electricity to run ur house…no rebates , no nothing. Drop all the rebates if u must, none for coal, none for renewables etc. But this carbon tax is to effect fuel, food, manufacturing…like we have enough problems with manufacturing as it is…..u want to actually produce nothing here at all. Lower pollution fine, increase and enforce the EPA, simple.

I really hate the attitudes of rich people who think that a tax that pushes up the price of fuel and food won’t hurt us poor people. I thought Getup would represent normal people, but from what Simon writes, it looks like it’s a whole stack of rich do-gooders who don’t give a stuff about real people.

But the compensation that we low income citizens get won’t make up for the hike in the prices of food, fuel and housing.

Fair enough, but we dont need to tax carbon or have an ETS, Simply bann all new developments that dont meet tough EPA standards. Thats right, no new commodity to trade in. 100′s of billions of dollars they want to play in. Nope. They polluted, dont let them and others now profit from it some more, using our money to do it. All new developments are to meet new tougher EPA standards.

hahahaaha 2004! I’d get chucked out of uni if I was using references that were that old!

yeah people who know anything about the nature of Wiki’s know that they can be edited by anyone – including totalitarian eco-fascists. hahahaha

maybe… but it certainly doesn’t stack up on political/environmental issues.

I’m just a long haired hippy and I want to stop this tax.

Yeah! I love a good rally! GetUp is really good at getting people to protest. It’s so good that the Unions support us like they do. And what a blast that we don’t need like facts or anything. We can just be all warm and fuzzy about how we are saving the world by wrecking the economy. We should protest for drug legalisation next!

lol, no hope of Labour winning the next election…
But thats politics.
The carbon tax is not necessary, unless u want to make lots of money in the carbon trading market.
It is unlikely that it will reduce pollution. Not here in Aus anyway. We have monopolies setup that limit
competition and hence the polluters can do as they please with no competition to force them to
lower pollution. Restrictive trade and protectionism will stop innovation, competition, new companies etc.
Just try and start a small power company producing electricity…lots of new resellers wanting to play in
the carbon market.
A better way is to enforce tougher EPA on the companies here…we can reduce pollution much better without
costing the general public and big trading companies profiting out of carbon trade.
Ok prices will go up anyways, but pollution will go down.
Lack of carbon trade and rebates etc will stimulate competitors and innovation.
The rebates are limiting all new players to large established companies. Hence little innovation and
generally over pricing and rorting of the systems.
I do have 1 example…a portable home power system running on gas was meant to retail at $8000, instead
due to big business and monopolies its expecting to come in at $24,000 to $48,000 yet to be finalised
with all sorts of contracts and service agreements etc pushed on it. Making it a great idea that will
be out priced purposefully as they are trying to get rebates on it…….kinda like the solar n wind which is
all over priced due to the rebates etc……n only big established companies can get in on it. No new
innovative business’s can get involved…frozen out.

Deniers,,,says who, we believe in climate change…just no tax, no ets. There is better ways to reduce pollution.

Based on what was talked about on The Drum on the ABC tonight there is still a lot that needs to be discussed about the Carbon tax. Much has been said about the PM not giving clear evidence about what effects the tax will have on the consumer financially, as well as what potential rebates will be given back to the consumer to offset the higher costs for electricity, food etc. But on the the hand experts in the field have made comments that the carbon tax will indeed be beneficial financially for low and middle income earners. Where are these experts getting this information to make such statements when the PM herself has not disclosed where and how much of the carbon tax will be redistrubuted to the people?

This is the major problem with the tax itself. If full discolsure is provided it allows everyone to make a rational judgement about something that will effect every Australian for years to come.

I’m sorry but the people should not pay for big business mess. the young are under enough pressure. The elderly now die in a position we could only dream of. Which we will never obtain. Our children and ourselves are under enough pressure to even have a penny when we retire. the Golden days will die with them and only them. we will not even have a pension. let alone health care in the future. The polys need to be seen for the people not Big business. END

Steve

I read the artical in the SMH where Get Up accused Allan Jones and Chris Smith of not telling the truth about climate change, and it seems that you are of the same opinion. Have you also demanded such truth from our Prime Minister? Or do you not wish to believe that the only reason she is intoducing a cabon tax is exactly for what it is, a tax? do you left wing socialist really believe that China will keep buying our coal and iron ore from us when they can get it cheaper from other countries that don’t have a fasical carbon tax, because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside that the Australian Labour party thinks that it is helping the environment? Introducing a carbon tax wont help the environment, only the Labour Party coffers. One other thing, the reson you don’t have a radio station to take up your cause is because it’s based on a lie.

So what facts do you have DJB? What is it that convinces you that the carbon tax is the right way to go? Now considering that Australia is responsible for a bit over 1% of total global emissions and considering that China, USA, India, The European Union, Japan and Russia (32 countries out of over 190 in the world) are collectively responsible for over 71% of total global emissions, what possible good is it for us to have a carbon tax (with no incentive to change consumption of carbon based products) while the countries I have mentioned above do NOT change? Does anyone find it curious that the countries responsible for the majority of the worlds pollution (71%), are all in the Northern hemisphere and mostly not far from the Arctic region?

DJB unless you get those responsible for 71% of the total global emissions to act, whatever we do will have absolutely no effect, at all. Consider that China is increasing emissions all the time, is building new coal powered electricity plants everyday, why are we rushing into something that will have nil effect on the climate when countries like China are increasing emissions at a rapid rate? If you can’t get the countries I have mentioned on board, we are just spinning our wheels and suffering at the same time. The carbon tax is a bad idea.

I attended the rally at Canberra, and we are telling you that everyone who went to the rally and the politicans are not climate change deniers, we also believe that co2 is man made and we need to do something to reduce this.
My question to you is this, with this carbon tax will it reduce the amount of carbon been pumped into the atmosphere? the answer is NO, the polluters can pump co2 at a extreme high level and they will be taxed, then the polluters will then pass the TAX onto us. The government will help low income families but what about the rest of Australians we have to pay for the governments lie.
The government has claimed about renewable energy, good, but there will always be coal fired power generators delivering 15% base loading, the sun does not shine 24 hours or the wind does not blow 365 days.
If the government want renewable energy what about ethanol and bio diesel, remove the fuel excise tax of 30% this will give the farmers a strong future, and stop the selling off of our natural gas to china.
We will loose jobs overseas and then we would have to import products here

Good points except brown and black coal burning make up 80% of Australia’s generation.

Rubbish! There is overwhelming support for a price on carbon. To call it a tax is stupid. Polluters must be penalised and given a financial incentive to change their behaviour. My only question is “Where was Getup yesterday when the flat earthers demonstrated outside parliament?” If a rally had been called, they would have been drowned out by supporters of an ETS which is where we have to go if we want to keep up with the rest of the world and save this planet from being polluted by excessive carbon monoxide and other human produced noxious substances, eg methane, radioactive isotopes, et al. Don’t let the neo-nay sayers rule the day!

Robert you are correct with what you are saying most of us do want to clean the planet and the air we breath and the government is using that to gain support but let me expand on it a little, up until not so long ago all government utilities where owned by the government, lets use electricity for instance, forget about carbon dioxide causing problems to the planet and lets think of carbon monoxides which is doing damage to humans.

I started to think to my self if carbon dioxide is harmless to humans but carbon monoxide is deadly then why didn’t they use Carbon monoxides as their selling point, they would have won me and others over in a second, they could have killed two birds with one stone Cleaner Healthier Air and the reduction of Carbon Dioxide Gases. They could have used slogans such as we have scientific proof that carbon monoxide is causing cancers or strokes, who wouldn’t want to pay such a tax?

Well I also had to slap my face a couple of times to wake up and thought to my self what am I thinking that could never happen that would be like they are admitting their guilt, all Governments Globally and all oil coal/Fossil Fuel Corporations Plus Car manufacturers, all combustion engine manufacturers and who ever else is left. If Global Governments admit that they new that fossil fuel/Energy Is making people sick and killing them and it’s destroying the planet and admit to knowing for many past generations and they are continuing to do the same thing now because of the pressures from the big corporations, we the people of the world could make them accountable for their negligence, after all it’s not our fault they haven’t given us an alternative, we pay our taxes and I mean allot of taxes so that they can fund the right people to find an alternative source of energy, at least that’s what they should be doing. The common man can’t do it we are not scientists we are not uni graduates we don’t have the funding that’s why we pay them large amounts of money so they can solve our problems for us but instead they constantly fail, they can’t even maintain our existing roads, and lets not forget the most important of all our health system, it’s ok, but it isn’t Great like it should be, without our health we have nothing.

So Julier Gillied went to America to meet and talk with Obama, yeah so what, did they talk about renewable energy and at what stage they each are at into finding a solution to some kind of clean energy, after all we do have a crises on our hands the world is being destroyed by natural disasters because of Global Warming, I mean that’s what the greens are saying and the pro carbon dioxide Tax movement. Oh I forgot silly me the only thing julier and Obama would have talked about would have been about real issues like war and who they were going to attack next and if they have been invited to Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s Wedding.

Even in the movies in an event of such global disaster you see governments go into panic mode and rush to do something to fix it, well how about in real life? Shouldn’t Global Governments Meet together and discuss clean renewable energy solutions, shouldn’t they be putting their best minds together to find a way to do it instead holding global warming conferences and coming up with stupid ideas. Some people that are Pro Carbon Dioxide Tax think that carbon dioxide is a pollutant when it clearly isn’t and that global warming is happening because of pollution, they clearly have forgotten what they learnt at school that there is also another gas called Carbon Monoxide also known as Carbon. Look at how may people on this forum that are saying the words a tax on carbon I have even heard Julier Gillied say a tax on carbon, so which one is it a tax on carbon or a tax on carbon dioxide? Does anyone know? If it’s a tax on carbon monoxide which I know it isn’t we should sue the oil company’s and the Governments for conspiring with them into selling us such a poisonous chemical that after using it, it becomes a very poisonous gas that makes humans sick and even death in more concentrated amounts and also destroys the planet.

So now they want us to pay another tax again, so it’s our fault again, look at the mess they have put us in by not investing money and ideas into renewable energy and not developing on existing ideas and inventions because they don’t want to upset the big oil corporations.
Oh I Forgot don’t worry to much because they are giving you a 48 billion internet connection I guess that is more important than saving the planet and human lives, they should have invested that money into the development of renewable energy
So what is it, do we care about this planet or not, if we really care about this planet and the human race we should be protesting against governments lack of interest in renewable energy. I mean if we can fly into space or land on moon using hydrogen fuel why aren’t they rushing into the development of hydrogen fuel energy for the sake of the survival of man kind? I guess it was more important to fund scientist to rush into the development of the hydrogen bomb. The American government have been talking about the hydrogen cell for the last 20 years and probably be talking about it for the next 20 years. Isn’t it funny how quickly they can develop something that is bad for man kind such as a hydrogen bomb but developing something for the good for man kind takes many years to develop and probably never will.

Why do GetUp! automatically think I am supporting their agenda for a Carbon Tax just because I supported them to lobby against an Internet filter? *I DO NOT SUPPORT A CARBON TAX*

Ummm even the pollies are calling it a tax

The polluters will pass the costs on and won’t affect them much at all. A trading scheme uses the money to offset the pollution with co2 negative ventures. The tax jusr shoves the money into general government revenue.

Trading scheme will put a price on carbon. A tax doesn’t.

Hi Windmill, How will polluters be penalised? What is their incentive to change their behaviour?

First point is that the ‘polluters’ will pass on the cost of the tax, levy, financial impost, whatever you want to call it. In other words, it won’t cost them anything, they will simply recoup it from the consumer. So if it won’t ultimately be a cost to them, why would they change? What is your understanding of how the ‘polluters’ will be affected?

Second, enough with the insults, I for one, am tired of being ridiculed because I am not convinced that the extent of man’s involvement in climate change is significant. Is this what people who believe in scientists do to people who don’t share the same view? Put them down as if their opinion doesn’t count? I know people from all sides do it but please, let’s be some of those who have a bit more respect for those of opposing views.

Third, When you say catch up with the rest of the world, what do you mean? Has the rest of the world gone somewhere? Has the rest of the world implemented a Carbon tax and we just haven’t heard about it? What about There are over 190 countries in the world, who is leaving us behind? I know europe (which has taken measures on carbon) is leaving us behind in unemployment, they have 10%, what are we? About 5%? Yes ok let’s catch up, we need to go to 10% which is what a Carbon tax and ETS will do. I guess you are right, we are being left behind.

Do you really know where we are being left behind? (and it’s not a bad thing) We are being left behind in being polluters. Did you know that Russia,China, the USA, Japan and India account for 57.23% of total global emissions? 5 countries in the world give us 57.23% of Global emissions. Should I say this again? That means that about 185 countries are responsible for the rest. Do you think we will achieve anything without the big 5 emitters? If they don’t get on board, what are we doing this for? To change the world temperatures by 0.0001 degrees?

You know if you add the emissions from the EU then those 5 countries plus the EU account for over 71.5% of carbon emissions. All this carbon ‘pollution’ is produced in the Northern hemisphere. How about we stop flogging ourselves because we in Australia are not the problem. Think of it this way.

You know Melbourne years ago had a problem with pollution. These days the air is much cleaner, why? Because those in authority took action. I lived a few years in a small country town where the main pollution would have been from the rubbish tip where periodically the garbage was burned. The pollution resulting from burning the rubbish went into the atmosphere but because it was such a small amount, it had no effect on the air quality, not one bit.

In this example, should Melbourne and the small town have to abide by the same rules in regards to pollution? One had a pollution problem, the other did not and was not contributing in a significant way to the problem of pollution.

The current issue with the Carbon tax is the same. The emitters are like the old Melbourne, polluting the environment, Australia is like the small town, polluting a bit but not contributing a significant amount to cause problems. This country is not the problem, I’m not saying we should not strive for a clean environment, but I am saying we have been working for years to have a cleaner environment and it has worked. What about a country like Fiji that contributes less than 0.1% of total global emissions? Should they have a carbon tax when they contribute a miniscule amount to global emissions? There are places in the world that they should not have a carbon tax. Greece adds o.4% to total global emissions. Why should they have to take part in a problem that they have not caused and will not cause in any significant way.

Get the big emitters to act, they are the problem. Otherwise, quite honestly, we are paying the price for something we have not done, we will suffer because of the actions of big emitting countries. We are not the problem here, look to the northern hemisphere.

Why would i support something that will only drive up my cost of living, but is a COMPLETELY UNMEASUREABLE to an indifferent issue. NO THANKS GETUP YOU DO NOT HAVE MY SUPPORT.

Oh and try to find your way out of Labours pocket. This is not why i joined.

ok, so if the tax fails to fix the issue in 5 years will they remove it?

How will this change be measured? (clearly it cant be)

Who will end up pocketing the bill?? US, the working Aussies. I am a Union member and have long believed Labor had the right idea… recent events have proved otherwise and THIS is a prime example. Stop being a puppet mate, do some investigation and work out your OWN OPINION, not the one theyre telling you to believe. Ide bet my wage, your response would be different.

Maybe the Get Up team should read the comments that the subscribers post. Most of them seem to decry the support of the Carbon TAX.
Why does the Get Up team assume that everyone drinks coffee daily and therefore should donate their “daily cup of coffee”? I can’t afford to buy a coffee every day. Don’t make assumptions about your readers. Why does the Get Up team wish to “dwarf” and thereby silence those who oppose a Carbon TAX, the elderly, small business people, many young people who ar just starting off in life, buying a car, a house etc? Why did Get Up dwarf the numbers who attended the rally, reported by the media to be 3000?

you can chose to sort by “newest” – little drop down menu at the top left of the discussion

‘Of course a reduction in emissions in Australia won’t impact the rate of global emissions. I have never heard the government say that this is what they are trying to achieve.’

Then why on earth are we having a carbon tax. To compete with overseas countries? The way to enable low polluting technologies to compete is first, for government to substantially increase research into developing these technologies. The government is investing in the NBN (which is a whole other debate) why not invest in great new technologies and get them up and running without hurting people by this carbon tax? Not like pink batts and solar schemes that they have had but actually investing in the research and development. Being partners with those technologies that it is believed will make a difference. Wouldn’t it be better to lead the world in new technologies as we have in the past? If the government was putting up money for ideas, there would be many new ideas and it would stimulate our inventiveness. The NEIS scheme (don’t know if it is still going) was about helping people with good business ideas to get them up and running. How about a scheme that gets new technologies up and running? Obviously it would have to be good ideas, enough to attract investment from the government, how about a new era of inventiveness, people come up with new ideas all the time, I have some which would reduce our emissions by over 5%. But the great thing is that if we can get these ideas up and running we can use them in other countries and reduce their emissions.

I just think a carbon tax is the easy way out. I believe in government controlled assets, which is why I don’t like to see the state electricity sold off or Telstra, especially when they are making really good money. I think government partnerships is a good thing and we could lead the world by this type of thinking.

So true!

This is where hypocrisy is as it’s finest the one thing that people forget is that the only way possible for this tax to work is to make the energy so expensive that the consumer can’t afford to use it or better still can’t afford to use as much, hence the less energy we use the less carbon dioxide we emit so why would the big polluters look at renewable energy after the known fact they will be selling us much less for much more. This way the government is robbing it’s people with yet another tax and the corporations a making a much bigger profit for it’s shareholders which by the way are our selves to some degree so in one instant they are taking and in another they are giving you a little bit more on your shares why do you think the big polluting corporations are not jumping up and down like the mining industry did, well let me answer that BECAUSE THEY WILL BE MAKING MUCH MORE PROFIT SELLING YOU LESS even with a tax that will be passed on to the consumer which will go to the government THEY WILL BE MAKING MUCH MORE PROFITS SELLING YOU MUCH LESS.

Dear Jara Puppet,

Your understanding is wrong. I have a tool which may assist in your redemtion. Google.

Use it.

Get some FACTS to form your own opinion. Try to stop being redundant.

I don’t think you really are a Jara… perhaps just a disgruntled Labor voter trying to convince herself she voted the right way.

Why don’t you REALLY support the cause and show your committment by selling your house – if you own one – if you don’t you never will anyway. LOSER.

Yes i heard this last night that GETUP are actively campaigning to “censor” radio I’m confussed, GETUp is against the cencorship of the internet but they are actively campaigning to “censor” radio DUH so what does Getup stand for the freedom of speech or not, or are they just another oganisation just there to grab money. I think Get Up has an obligation to it’s members to please explain.

I’ve been a fan of GetUp! since it’s inception and what it stands for…”unbiased freedom of speech”. Is this so anymore?? Have you gotten a little big headed with your own fame? GetUp! seems to be becoming the Labor Party Champion and it feels like you are becoming more and more onside with Labor and the Greens. I would hate to think that GetUp! is going this way. You supported Julian Assange’s right to freedom of speech but this latest email campaign berates the common man for his.

I am as much concerned about climate change as the next person and our home is testament to ‘doing our bit’ with tank water, solar electricity and our own sewerage treatment plant. I do not agree with a carbon tax – the people of Australia are being bombarded with taxes left, right and centre at the moment and surely there are other ways of tackling this problem. The other reason I am against this tax is that Julia Gillard, on gaining power, blatantly declared there would be “no carbon tax” – it’s on record. She is a liar and a fraud and I’m very disappointed that GetUp! would support this deceit.

I am always interested in what GetUp! has to say and do, but if you continue to be this biased I will be unsubscribing from your email and ignoring your campaigns.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all your enthusiastic comments on this blog post. We’ve been absolutely swamped by your thoughts over the last week, and we thank you for putting so much dedicated time into providing us with your feedback. We’re really pleased to see so much involvement and active discussion in one place.

There have been plenty of questions asked and feedback given – hopefully I can respond to the majority of it here.

We’ve taken on a campaign for a price on pollution because we believe it’s the most effective way to fight for environmental sustainability in Australia. It’s a campaign that is garnering huge amounts of support from our members, and has been wildly successful thus far in bringing together our amazing community in the fight for climate action.

This said, we do understand that climate change and climate action are not issues that everyone agrees on. By being a member, you’re not joining up to any kind of creed – we don’t presume that our membership will always agree on every idea, that’s why our campaigns are run on an opt-in basis. If you disagree with this campaign, we hope that you’ll be involved in campaigns that you’re passionate about in the future.

We’re here to give our membership ways to act on issues that you’re most passionate about – and we feel this campaign does so. That said, some of you are asking for more background research, others are asking specific questions about the carbon tax – all of these questions are legitimate and we absolutely want to fill the gaps in which you feel we haven’t provided you with the detail you’d like. I’m currently compiling your key concerns from these blog comments and from the emails we’ve received, and I’ll be reporting back to the rest of the team and instate some solutions.

If you have any further comments on this campaign, you’re in the right place! I’d love to make sure we can fill in the gaps for you in the near future, and your feedback is always valuable. The more constructive you can be, the better our campaigns will be in the future.

Thanks for all that you do,

Kelsey
for the GetUp team

OK GOOD… i only want 3 things answered

1 – How are they going to prove its working
2 – How are they going to ensure WE arent the ones paying
3 – If by miracle they figure out how to measure the results, and realise its not working, will they shut it down so things can go back to normal.

Awaiting your reply.

So you give your full support in your government to rip off it’s Citizens and give your full support in big polluters like oil companies and electricity producing Corporation in making a huge profit for selling you less for more. Why is it that these energy corporations are not jumping up and down screaming because of these taxes like the Mining company’s did? Answer, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE MAKING MORE PROFITS BY SELLING YOU LESS FOR MORE. For Gods sake use your brain and stop mimicing what they are telling you, do the math do you remember when Mr Rudd wanted to tax the mining corporations, they where jumping up and down screaming with anger and almost brought down the government with their add campaigns. I ASK AGAIN Why Aren’t the Energy Corporation Jumping up and down with anger? Answer BECAUSE IT IS NOT HARMING THEIR PROFITS IN FACT THEY WILL BE MAKING MORE MONEY SELLING YOU LESS PRODUCT.

i question the validity of an organisation that is funded by Trade Union donations, getup, read Labour Party

Why cant we take this to the australian people and let us vote on this carbon tax. Its not that much to ask is it??? Let common sense prevail please and let the people decide and not just a handful of politicians. Also can anyone out there answer this simple question. How much (by degrees if possible) will a carbon tax in australia cool the planet???

Pathetic protesters name-calling our poised,coiffed pm over carbon tax is disingenious,witless, visual pollution.Ms Gillard has drawn a very short,accurate bow to penalise the biggest offenders,and with any luck(and with a little help from her Green friends),Sherwood Forest will regenerate,and it’s people will live happily ever after..
Can’t make the rally,but would love to get involved in active lobbying for solar solutions to our energy requirements.

Nice to see U guys are watching this tread. Just on 1 point. This comment “If you disagree with this campaign, we hope that you’ll be involved in campaigns that you’re passionate about in the future. ”
The problem with that, is people are some passionate about not having a carbon tax, but this goes in direct conflict with GetUp stance.

I would think most people agree we need climate action. No problem there. What the problem is IF a Carbon Tax is the right way to go, NOT only for the country but for the individual. The individual has to bear the cost of this, and U cant expect to make a group decision without people considering their own personal situations, which is what GetUp are trying to do. U cant go 1000 miles an hour into something without knowing the full picture and try and convince people it will be good for them.

I’m against this tax at this stage. Not because it might not benefit the environment, but I want to know the exact situation, how much will it cost, will I get any compensation (I doubt it), what will it do, what do I have to sacrifice, how will it benefit the environment and how will it be measured.

Its a very dangerous situation when U blindly follow a stance of political party or organisation without fully questioning and knowing the full consequences of such a big, big policy, not to the country but the individual.

Let’s try and lobby and realize the good intention that tax gathered from big industrial polluters can be distributed to people who actually can’t afford to eat,or pay their rent because of their power bills.Many people in my neighbourhood are suffering,not because they can’t buy that new car,or go overseas this year,but because they can’t afford the very basics-food,shelter.etc.Getup and its support of environmental/humanitarian issues is the nearest thing we have to a compassionate,philanthropic organisation.Yes,some opinions may be extreme,but occasionally if enough people push for the greater good,small miracles happen.Prayers to those who understand this and are doing something about it.

Probably best to err on the side of caution,don’t you think?

That is a very good point, if we stop coal mining tomorrow there are many other overseas suppliers waiting to take our place. We will kill an industry here and it won’t make any difference in global temperatures. That is another fact overlooked by the likes of Bob Brown and Julia Gillard. There are some countries, I dare say, that don’t give 2 hoots in hell about global warming, they have less industrial restrictions and will fill the void if we cut out one of our main sources of income.

One more point about gillard, she says she was pressured to decide on the carbon tax, when asked, brown said he didn’t pressure her. Was it windsor, oakshot, bandt, wilkie, who was in a position to pressure her? If they didn’t pressure her, was this her idea all along, to lie to us in the election and bring in the carbon tax if she was able to get in and then blame it on the greens and the independants? When will people say enough is enough with the lies that come out of her mouth everytime she opens her mouth? What is there that you can actually believe about Julia and what she says? Her word is worth nothing, she continually lies, if she was a CEO of a public company she would face criminal charges. Why are politicians of all persuasions not accountable in the same way as CEO’s? She runs the biggest organisation in Australia yet it is not illegal for her to plainly lie to us, it is legal deception. I know many politicians lie to us, it is the level of deceit that has just gotten too much. I feel sad that when we finally get a female PM, that she is such a disappointment, someone who would not know the truth if she ran into it. All of you who support gillard, please tell me, at what point will you say she has lied too much, that it is finally too much for you to stomach, or do you just not care? If you hate abbot, that’s one thing but don’t you feel like screaming at Gillard and tell her to stop treating all of us like idiots, like people who can’t think?

People criticised Howard and I’m not saying they didn’t have good reasons at times, but if you support Gillard, tell her to stop telling lies, to treat us with respect by being honest for once. I would rather see Crean or even Paul Howes. Although he is not an MP I hope he gets into parliament one day, he at least has a sense of decency about him. Labor needs more people like him.

It does sound like they are trying to stop freedom of expression i heard this last night that GETUP are actively campaigning to “censor” radio, What the hell, you can’t actively campaign to stop the filtering of the internet and on the other hand actively campaigning to “censor” radio. I’m completly lost what does GETUP stand for?

You asked the question why not invest in great new technologies and get them up and running without hurting people by this carbon tax? The answer is that they will never go down that track because of the pressures from the big polluting Corporations, they will never allow it. You see the problem is (1) the Governments are the Puppets and the corporations are their Bosses and (2) most of the new technologies out there are free energy devices. All you need to do to see for your selves is go to you tube and type in the search Magnetic motor bike; the Japanese have invented a Motorbike that runs on Magnetic power which means Free Power for the life of the Motor Bike. Also search for Magnet4Power and here you will see a free magnetic powered Generator made in Queensland but that is the problem once again it’s free, so you see the government and corporations don’t really see the need to reduce carbon dioxides but instead they see the need for Revenue and profits.

Careful now, your bias is showing.

You must surely be aware of the large array of data which backs up the governments current stance. While I am sure that the opposition can quote opposing data, which is their right and duty, this does NOT negate the validity of the current climate change data.

As for the coal … you are aware that it is a finite resource, yes? There is a short term option for countries to abandon Australia and source elsewhere, but there is no getting around the fact that Australia is resource rich. Short of digging a big tunnel through the earth to get at those resources, Australia will end up supplying those resources regardless.

To see how the polluters are penalised, you just need to extend your thought to the next step.

The product manufacturers raise the price to offset the tax. The customers are aware of the price increase and they are dismayed, wanting to pay less for the product they wanted. So manufacturer B, seeing an opportunity for market share and therefore profit, produces a competitive product using cleaner or carbon neutral methods, and dumps into the marketplace a product which can now compete with the higher priced carbon-heavy product.

Customers are pleased with the cheaper product, and manufacturer A, realising their customer base loss, also switches to a low-carbon process to reduce their costs so they can once again compete.

There is your incentive – the only real incentive business knows. Lower your carbon output and increase your profits.

As for the rest of your statement, I’m sorry but it’s just ridiculous to suggest that as a lower nett producer of pollution we have any less responsibility to move to cleaner technologies than the higher end of the spectrum. And I mention nett production on purpose. Australia is very high on the per-person pollution production scale – the reason we rank so low in nett production is simply the low population of the country as opposed the the dense population elsewhere.

Moving forward, assuming we maintain our pollution production rate per-person, and our population explodes as it is expected to do, then we will be one of the worst carbon producing countries in the world. By your rationale, it is only *then* that we should look at doing something to curb this issue?

No. What is being shown here is leadership. They are looking at the science and deciding that action must be taken. It’s scary for some, but change *must* happen to prevent the situation getting worse. And if the climate change doubters are correct, and nothing is wrong, then that’s great. We made some changes and there was some discomfort but we’re still OK and we can continue. If we do nothing and it turns out climate change was real, but we did nothing … well … then we’re pretty much screwed, yes?

As for the plan to get big emitters to act … what is your suggestion for that? If they aren’t hit in the wallet then they will just keep doing what they have always done. Profits for shareholders now, the cleanup can be done by someone else – but we sure aren’t paying. Or perhaps you think that giving billions to a company who makes billions by polluting is a way to send the message. I don’t know if you have considered this, but maybe that message is “if you want billions in handouts, create a big company which pollutes heavily”.

What? I know you’re excited, but seriously, try to form sentences from which meaning can be wrung.

The Mining companies were jumping up and down because they were being singled out specifically. What would jumping up and down over this prove? They can’t deny the need for change and they can’t deny that it’s fair for the amount paid to increase with carbon production. They have nothing to gain by fighting this.

In fact, understanding that this change has to happen, I’m sure most big business wish that they would just get on and do it already so that they can at least be confident of where their companies futures are heading. Uncertainty, both locally and internationally, is hurting them more than the carbon tax will.

Okay, so she says something which was not the truth as defined by you, and what? Now everything she says is a lie.

The key to politics is being part of the debate. She was called to task over the “broken promise” and the answers she gave, while not entirely satisfying, were certainly reasonable. You make it sound like when asked to explain, she replied “Listen, I just wanted to alright”.

No, she was following the flow of the politic. The greens no doubt asserted some pressure, as did the independents I’d imagine. As did many concerned Australians who contacted their local representatives, who in turn passed those concerns up to the prime minister.

They are our leaders – at least they are supposed to be. If Julia promised that she was going to make it mandatory for all people worship cats, and the people made it clear that they did not want that, what would you want? Her to say ‘I made a promise’ and do it anyway, or say ‘Well, I was wrong, people don’t want to worship cats, so I’m breaking my promise.”?

No really … what would you want her to say?

Hey, you’re the incoherent rambler from before. You make more sense here, but still you seem to have some odd assumptions.

The price goes up per unit of resource yes, to counteract the carbon tax, yes. The increased cost to the consumer means that (according to what appears to be your logic) they consume less of that resource because they can no longer afford to.

Ok, lets assume that you are correct in peoples usage patterns for a second. Where does the resource provider do anything here but LOSE money? They make the same profit per unit sold (remember, they put up the price to offset their new cost not to increase profit) but now they sell less. However you want to frame that, they lose money.

The desired outcome here is that this artificially high price will push carbon heavy resources above the current price of carbon-neutral resources, meaning the way to get cheaper prices is to take the greener option. This then feeds back into a cycle of requiring more green resources, hence more infrastructure which in turn creates more industry and more jobs. As the green technology becomes mainstream the cost of production equipment is reduced and the cost of the green resource falls until … hmmm … it is priced around what it is now and the demand for carbon heavy resources is all but gone.

Oh wait a second … maybe that is the point …

Okay, I’ll bite. How do you take money off big business (by making them spend millions in plant upgrades, new processes, etc) and make them wear that cost and not pass it along to your highly pressured kids?

Perhaps we could do something like, I don’t know, charge them for pollution to give them a reason to invest in clean technology, and then use those collected funds to .. oh I don’t know, provide relief to those same highly pressured kids.

Or maybe we should just throw billions into the coffers of those businesses and go to them hat in hand and say “Please Sir, could you please pollute less. Thank you Sir”, and then hope for the best?

Stykes you are right they can’t deny the need for change and change is needed I agree with that and we do need to reduce the level of carbon monoxides
for the sake of our health but they are not trying to tax carbons they are trying to tax carbon dioxides which is essential for the survival of the planet and don’t get me wrong they go hand in hand if you reduce the level of carbon dioxides you will also reduce the level of carbon monoxides which is a health problem for humans, it probably is the main cause for cancers and other disease. So this is where it gets hard to understand what direction most of us want to take, just like most scientists which really don’t take a side or speak out. Allot of scientists that know that carbon dioxides is not harming the planet and that it is a lie don’t speak up because at least the lie will clean the planet from carbon Monoxides which is our biggest problem, science has been telling governments for a long time to clean their act and reduce the pollution in the air. The reason why most of us are upset is the way they are trying to do this, and that is with a lie, and I bet you that all the deniers don’t deny that we need to clean the air we breathe from carbon monoxides. You see the problem is the way the government is doing this is by hurting it’s people not the producers of energy and you can also look at it this way they are trying to punish us the people for using their one and only product they are selling us after all before privatising and selling everything it used to be owned by the government. I also see things in a different way to me they should be giving us very cheap electricity and I’ll explain why, what makes the coal that comes out of our country the governments isn’t it ours. All the citizens and especially the people that are born in Australia don’t we own a share of the coal and profits, it does belong to the people not just the governments alone shouldn’t we be subsidised on our electricity bill because we our selling billions of tones of to the rest of the world, what makes it theirs isn’t it ours, but instead of living a comfortable life because our country is rich in minerals we are suffering to pay our bills. I tell you what I AGREE TO GIVE MY SHARE OF THE COAL PROFITS TO THE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE TAX ON CARBON DIOXIDES OK, YOU WIN I COMPLY.

At least 7000 people put their feet in the streets to show their support.

If you assume that of all getup members who support this issue, many of them would have been out of range of the event. I’ll be very optimistic and say that 20% of supported this issue were in range to turn up. So the 7000 could represent an actual number of supporters of around 35,000 (7000 0.2).

Then, given the short notice and the demands of todays lifestyle that not everyone who was in range was actually able to arrange their schedule to be present. I’m feeling generous, so let’s say 25% of people were able to drop what they were doing at a weeks notice and turn up. This means that your representative number would be more like 140,000.

So Ok, but you’d also have to assume that of the people that support climate change action, only a small proportion would be motivated enough to actually get out there on the streets to show their support. I’d say maybe 5% would be motivated enough, but lets be hugely optimistic and say 20%. So for every 1 person who would have shown up had they been in range and able to attend, there were 4 people who weren’t motivated enough to physically go. This could mean that the 140,000 represent a group of 700,000 who actually support climate change AND are a member of GetUp!

Why is this interesting? Well, primarily because getup only has a membership of 437,786. That means that statistically, not only does every member of GetUp! support climate action, when they turned up, they also brought an extra 6 people per 10 members.

Of course, this is an extrapolation and is inherently unreliable … but it should give you pause when you say the bulk of members do not support climate action. Even allowing for a 50% error rate in this extrapolation, it would suggest an 80% support rate.

Listen, I agree with you regarding the miners. They *Should* be compensating the Australian people for the finite resources they take. It’s just a shame the government backed away from the hard line they were taking, and let the mining companies negotiate their contribution down (really .. who gets to negotiate how much tax they pay anyhow – I know I cant).

The government, should either forward that money to the people, directly or indirectly, I don’t care, but it should be visible and it’s use transparent.

So we agree on that. But again, I have to call you out on a few issues.

First, carbon monoxide is a bad gas, you’re right. It acts directly on humans and can cause various medical issues from a mild headache to death. I don’t know of a concrete link between carbon monoxide and cancer, but then again I haven’t looked too hard. The point being however, is that it is a poison to humans in strong enough concentrations. But that is the effect on humans, not the climate, and it is the climate we are discussing.

Carbon monoxide affects methane, carbon dioxide, and ozone in the lower atmosphere, and is therefore does play a role in climate change. Carbon dioxide production is generally linked to carbon monoxide production, in that the same activities tend to produce both in varying quantities. So, in relation to this discussion BOTH gases are harmful to our climate.

So why tax one and not the other, well .. because it makes no difference. Reducing one will reduce the other. It it makes you happy think of it as a tax on carbon monoxide (carbon tax with a silent monoxide) then feel free. Putting a price on one to reduce it’s production has the same effect as applying the price on the other. I believe that carbon dioxide is usually referenced as the benchmark simply because it is the most prevalent and therefor the easiest to detect and measure, though there may be other reasons.

Secondly, I don’t think that these price rises will dramatically reduce consumption of electricity in particular. The demand is there and it is strong. But by increasing the cost of carbon-heavy power, it makes carbon-light or carbon-neutral the more affordable option. Widespread adoption of this green energy will drop the cost of production due to reduced plant costs (due to larger scale production) and lower the end cost for energy.

The end result – widespread preference for greener energy due to it’s lower comparative cost, and greatly reduced production of BOTH types of carbon.

And if I get a cheque in the mail from the miners, well that’s just a bonus.

Oh … and just in passing … I’m not trying to make you comply. I’m just trying to wedge a few arguments in there so you can question your beliefs and assumptions. We all should do so. There is nothing wrong with finding out you were wrong, because it means that you no longer are. I have to tell myself that because I do it all the time.

But anyhow, I detect a certain anti-government intervention / control sentiment in there. I have to say that I am actually pretty heavy into that mindset myself – but honestly, on this issue, I think it makes a whole lot more sense than waiting for big business to do the right thing on their own. And who other than the government can bring big business to heel?

Shame Shame Shame

It is with regret that I feel I must post this responce to what was once a respectable organisation
You once carried my hopes for a better Australia. Now only to yourself become an extremist organisation which no longer has my support and is alientating yourself from avareage Australians. Although I realise change is needed however it must be done in a way that we can afford this carbon tax is not the way to go In my opinion you have just become the voice off the Greens

Sorry, this is just foolish.

Comparing a gas to a solid is flawed from the beginning.

But seeing as how you started it. The carbon dioxide is a strip about the width of a hair. OK … good. So if that strip is in the centre of the bridge and we remove it .. what happens … the bridge falls in half?

That is not how gasses work, especially in the upper atmosphere. It’s more like comparing it to a glass of water to which you introduce a small amount of ink. That small addition changes the whole by some degree.

But even that is being too imprecise, because gases tend to separate and form layers based on their own weight. Yes, there are vast bands of gas that make up the bulk of out atmosphere … but they are layers which don’t have much to do with climate change as we understand it.

The layers we are concerned with are comparatively minute, but have a major impact on the role that this layer performs regarding the regulation of temperature on our planet.

So, to come back to your analogy, we have a hair width strip along the centre of the bridge. It represents the layer described above. What you’re suggesting is that messing with the composition of this section is irrelevant. So what if, when the bridge was built, we had mixed the concrete which makes up that section of the bridge without any recipe. We just threw it together without checking the proportions of ingredients.

20 years later, when that section crumbles at the lightest touch, causing the premature failure of the bridge, would you be among the people asking why someone hadn’t tried to put in place some kind of quality control system to ensure the mix stayed within acceptable bounds.

And .. as a final thought, keep in mind that this bridge is one that our kids will be on.

You will never get a cheque in the mail from the miners but it was a good thought. Look like I said in other posts the problem isn’t the tax we are probably going to have to pay the problem is if you look at the bigger picture the only way this tax can work so to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to make electricity for instance that expensive that we can’t afford to use as much, so there way of thinking is if we use less we will be emitting less carbon dioxide.
How can that possibly force the corporations to look into renewable energy when the corporations will be making more profits to sell you less of their product. Wouldn’t it have been a better idea to spend 48 billion dollars on the development of existing technologies that are out there instead of Broadband the NBN but once again the government has let us down.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when they where reporting that the estimate damage after the earthquake in JAPAN is only 35 Billion worth of damage and I say the words only because the NBN is going to cost us over 48 billion Dollars. I can probably download a movie from Foxtel in less than 5 minute how much quicker do we need the internet to be and if they get away with filtering the internet then what’s the point of having internet anyway, 48 Billion (Forty eight thousand million dollars) that money could have gone towards the development of existing renewable or free energy technology. Don’t forget their other stuff ups, when we where having water shortages instead of building a new dam or a new catchment area to at least fill our existing dam what does the state labor government do In NSW, they build a desalination plant, GREAT IDEA, and what does a desalination plant need to run, yes that’s right Fossil Fuels and they think they are looking forward towards the future, yeah right, the average Joe Blow has better ideas than them.

If the government wants to impress me then take the technology that has come out of Queensland invest money into it to better that technology it’s called Magnets4power do a search you can find it and who knows we may even pin a Mickey mouse badge on Juliar for a job well done.

interesting Stryks, obviously you have know knowledge of how big business works. Sorry, but all your arguments, in reality, do not work. Australia has been used for over 40 years as a test for new ways of population control for western society. Do some research and you will understand this. This is why Australia is heading down this road. Europe’s different country’s with some form of ETS have come to a conclusion that it will not work in the best interests of the country doing it.
America is waiting to see what happens here as far as population acceptance of or rejection of an ETS. If our government can pull this off without a major outcry then America will odopt a form of the scheme for themselves.
The whole carbon argument is mute really. There is no scientific proof in any way that carbon has anything to do with GLOBAL WARMING. I use the term GLOBAL WARMING because that is how it started out until the temperture started declining from 1998 and they changed the name to climate change which is an ongoing, natural circle anyway.
However, there is ample proof that the ppm of carbon rises AFTER a warming period on the planet. This would be perfectly natural as the plant growth increases and then decays the result is more carbon dioxide being released. This is good for the plants as without it they would die and then so would we.

The amount of toxic pollutants released into the atmosphere after any given volcanic erruption is so much more greater then we could do in 200 years of industrialised behavior. The atmosphere has a very unique way of dealing with this and so does it with any amount of poison or other wise that we pump out.

Please do your own research….we have coral core samples, ice core samples, all going back over 500,000 years. We know how hot it’s been and how cold and how much carbon was in the atmosphere…the facts are there and these facts condradict everything the IPCC puts out. It is a con to make money, the only reason.

I am all for renewable energy and to stop messing up the planet but I also don’t want to see hard working people have to struggle anymore then they do now. A tax on carbon will create massive hardship to most people and will do nothing to a problem that does not exist.

I started writing a post, detailing my own studies and beliefs, debunking some of your skewed information along the way.

And then I realised that what you are doing here is what skeptics love to do. Throw in some doubt, a but of fear, and a healthy dose of uncertainty.

That’s fine if that is what you are into, but I’m not actually going to defend the science to you … or anyone for that matter. Because you’re right, the science is moot (mute?) … it is NOT the point. Science is for the scientists, and the majority of credible scientists agree that climate change is real and a threat to future human habitation of this planet. They also mostly agree that reducing our impact on the environment is an important step in our future survival. In fact where it becomes the murkiest is whether or not it is caused by humans. Which is handy, because I don’t care, and neither should you.

Why, because scientists also tend to agree that the earth seems to have suffered several events which removed most of the life from the planet. Now, what if that is a natural cycle, and we knew about it, and we thought we had a way to stop it? Would you try to stop it, or just go, “well, it’s not man made, so just let it happen”?

You see, what we are debating is action over inaction, not whether the science is perfect or if it is our doing. And for me, the answer is action every time.

As I have said elsewhere, I’d rather action was taken and the science found to be wrong (though at this stage, we’re facing pretty long odds), than just keep going on the path we have been and find out that it was right, but too late to help us.

And you don’t want working people struggling any more than they are now? I challenge you to find any pro-climate action who does. But the mineral boom will not and can not last forever. Whether we start to move to a renewable future now or later, it WILL happen. Why not put ourselves first and give Australians the opportunity to lead the rest of the world, and build new industries and create new jobs in the process?

Oh, and if you’re going to continue the science debate here … sources please. You say you want to encourage research, then let’s see where you get your information from. Credible sources only please.

The carbon tax is about incentive to big business, not about making them more profit. If they increase their price to cover the tax and then sell less product they actually still make less.

And the incentive is the same as given them huge wadges of cash and then telling them to change to a carbon-neutral process, just in reverse. In that approach, we take chunks of taxpayers money and give it multi-billion dollar organisations and they make changes to the way they do business. The ETS or taxation approach is the same, except that businesses are punished for not self-funding change, and everyone gets slugged a little until the price comes down.

In the end, we all pay either way. It’s just that the latter approach has the benefit of also opening up competition and promoting business growth along the way. Besides, I hate the thought of that tax money being given to the people who can afford it most.

And then you head off on a tangent relating to the NBN. I don’t know why, but there it is. I’m pro-NBN … I think it’s something we need in order to move Australia up in the technology sector. So much wealth could be created in this country by industries built around this technology, that I think in the end it would be worth it at twice the price, though in reality it is just a little over half what you quoted. And did I mention the ability of a ubiquitous, fast and wide spread network to help reduce our carbon reduction efforts?

And just out of interest, the “I can get stuff fast so there IS no problem” is both abhorrently selfish and beside the point. It’s not there to help you download stuff faster.

Umm .. what else is there … a lot of random stuff.

Free energy with Magnets4Power – Really? Come see me when you’re running it and then we’ll discuss how great it is. I fear however, you’ll be sorely dissapointed.

Building a catchment system. Besides the fact it cant be done, we cant even keep the ones we have healthy.

More dams. You realise that building more dams doesn’t increase the amount of water we have yes? Like minerals, fresh water is a finite resource. If you had 1 dam and enough rain fell to fill it, then having two dams would only serve to have two half-full dams. Most of them were near on empty for the last few years … I don’t think we were really struggling for somewhere to put it all. And two dams that somehow got full … well .. that would be pointless as a potential flood stopper, wouldn’t it?

I’m with you on the desal plant. Given the power it needs to process the water and then to move it, you’d almost need nuke to power it and I don’t see that as a way forward either.

How dare the Government tax the air I exhale! It is my air and I should invoice the government for using it to grow the country’s crops. I am in fact a life giver to all plant life. What a resource I am. Perhaps I should even be subsidised. Now don’t make me hold my breath!! Get Up, Get Out!

A comment from the Super Coach, Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin: “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself – climate is beyond our power to control . . . Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

The comparative size of a crowd is not a measure of how correct the stance is. You might all be wrong.

Science has always advanced by sceptisism. In fact, the Scientific Method is by design is sceptical.

Getup is NOT democratic in any sense at all! What the hell is going on in our country! How the hell is Carbon Dioxide dangerous in any way? We breathe it out and all plant life breathes it in! I am sick of all these nutcases running around saying we have to ‘SAVE THE PLANET’! What amazes me even more is that no one really cares about the environment! We have genuinely dangerous pollutants poured into our atmosphere like Carbon Monoxide ( yes, that one! ) from all of our cars and yet no one ever mentions that! And our idiot federal government and the loopy greens want everyone to use those compact fluoro light bulbs that contain mercury, one of the most deadly neurotoxins known to man and when those dangerous bulbs wear out they are not disposed of properly and almost always end up in landfill and the mercury leaches out into our environment! and all we hear about is harmless Carbon Dioxide!!!
We have now entered into a new ‘dark age’ where reason and commonsense is despised and anyone who questions what is going on is ridiculed and demonized! I reckon this Simon is probably hoping to be able to trade in carbon credits, that is why he is personally pushing so hard for a carbon tax!
The carbon price has already collapsed in Europe, Even the French government gave it away when they were almost tossed out when they tried to introduce a carbon tax there! Our media here is guilty too of not telling us what is really happening! try googling ‘carbon fraud’ or carbon trading woes’ and you will see what is happening overseas! do your own research and see why the Gillard/Brown crowd are so desperate to try this nonsense in Australia!
And ask anyone who is pro carbon dioxide tax and see if they have a vested interest in this!

hello Stryks…you wrote “And then I realised that what you are doing here is what skeptics love to do. Throw in some doubt, a but of fear, and a healthy dose of uncertainty.”
Is this not what the Climate change lobby is doing. All I asked is for you to do your own research. The truth is out there. I could post links but you need to find your own truth. As for any typo’s or mis spelled words or words used wrong although the meaning is understood, this is just nitpicking to igress from the real root of the dicussion.
The science is not settled on human global warming nor is the majority of the scienctists in favor of global warming. Please start looking at it objectivly and with an unbiased view.
I am not a skeptic, I know the truth. Find it for yourself.

As far as inaction goes regardless who is right or who is wrong, follow the money trail. A lot of people stand to gain an incredible amount of money by convincing people about carbon and it’s effect on creating a greenhouse effect that will kill all on this planet.
It is, without a doubt, the biggest con job on the worlds population that has ever been done.

Geology does not lie……the past is set in ice and coral and soil. It is proven with these samples that carbon is a reaction of a warming climate that has been warming for 12,000 years since the last ice age. It has yet to reach it’s warmest. But even though the earth has cyclic warm and cold times, these can also differ because there is no set pattern of the earths climate over many thousands of years.

From above: “They are our leaders – at least they are supposed to be. ” I prefer to refer to “them” as our representatives. However, your choice. You can be led by your “leaders” or determine you own future through your direct influence on your representatives. Again, your choice. You can be led any which way or make them go your way. Again, your choice. Australia must get back to the basics of what an “elected representative” means. I am damn sure it is not what is currently on display anywhere in Australia.

Well said! of course Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant! You know I was thinking as most people are rather ignorant, this is very likely the reason behind the Gillard/Brown government’s reason why they simply call it a carbon tax’ rather than a carbon dioxide’ tax! and from what I have been seeing when simply ‘ carbon’ is mentioned, many people will assume the government means ‘carbon monoxide’ which, of course is very deadly!

Look Im over all the comments as to who is going to be taxed and who is going to be compensated – Im a 61 yr old Viet Vet that thought I was doing the right thing at the time but now with 40 yr hindsight it is quite plain that it wasn’t. Most people agree we have a problem- the argument seems to only be about who is going to pay to clean up the mess -the companies doing it or the taxpayers. The Companies doing it arent going to stop doing it until it is uneconomical to do so. If the companies that successfully blackmailed the Gvt over the mining tax and others like Blue Steel and Allcoa want to relocate overseas OK go for it – let the Government negotiate the vacant licences direct with the Chinese or whoever wants the stuff,cut out the middle men and put in place guidlines that cut emmissions in our country as a part of the new contracts. I know its probably old fashioned but despite having been attacked during most of my professional life in property development I have always tried to have regard to the fact that “the Earth is not given to us by our parents – its lent to us by our children” Before any one dumps on me Im not a Green or a rusted on voter of any party – in fact I do not get to vote despite being a resident and taxpayer of the country for the past 40 years – I just think its about time someone starting thinking of our children rather than how much extra they may have to pay next year after deductions for the holiday home – I wonder if the residents of Fukushima are worried right now about what taxes will be levied on the them or other residents in Tokyo or the rest of the country to clean up a natural and man made distaster that had been forcast by some but disregarded beause of the economic cost to the companies building them – One would guess the upfront cost then would have been lot less than what they are facing now for decontamination, cleanup and compensation – buts thats the benfit of hindsight.

Carbon Tax is a fraud.

Stryks……you wrote “More dams. You realise that building more dams doesn’t increase the amount of water we have yes? Like minerals, fresh water is a finite resource. If you had 1 dam and enough rain fell to fill it, then having two dams would only serve to have two half-full dams. Most of them were near on empty for the last few years … I don’t think we were really struggling for somewhere to put it all. And two dams that somehow got full … well .. that would be pointless as a potential flood stopper, wouldn’t it? ”

Really, you can not be serious. Or did you not see the floods all over the east coast of Australia. If we had 10 times the dams we have now they would all be full. Water, as our government says, is precious and needs to be handed out sparingly, could someone please remind the PRIVATE contractors who run Wivenhoe dam not to keep letting the water out…they sent a dam at 100% to 75%…..then we end up carrying the cost of water.

Magnetic energy is free energy and it works, has done for over 30 years. Do your research, the truth is out there.

And i’m sorry mate but your starting to not make a great deal of sence in your reply’s to well thought out, balanced comments.

I’m not going to debate semantics, though the point is well made.

I tend to agree with you. In fact, deep down I feel that the entire system is inherently broken.

But I guess you can only work with what you have.

Stryks you are not looking at the bigger picture who cares who produces the cheaper product and which way they do it if we won’t be able to afford to buy from neither, I care about how much electricity and petrol will cost me in the not so distant future.
If our government really cared about climate change don’t you think they would at least force all car manufacturers to convert all vehicles to straight compressed natural gas after all Australia has an endless supply of natural gas. I found this information on the net.

CNG (compressed natural gas)
CNG emits significantly less pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM), compared to petrol. For example, an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22,000 grams of CO2, while covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16,275 grams of CO2.

And if they also attach a hydrogen on demand system to it which anyone can find the plans on how to do it on the net,“so that technology is out there to”, you will then be able to bring the carbons and carbon dioxides down to a significant amount. How many government busses do you still see running on diesel fuel why haven’t the government converted each and every one of them to natural gas?
Why did they build desalination plants which need fossil fuels to run?
Why are they still allowing fossil fuel powered combustion engines when Hydrogen fuel is clearly the answer a hydrogen combustion engine unlike the fossil fuel engine emits water out of the exhaust instead of pollution. If a space shuttle can shoot out into space on hydrogen fuel then why shouldn’t a motor vehicle do the same and run on hydrogen fuel.

If the government was doing their bit by trying to reduce carbon dioxide by implementing these changes like having each and every bus on natural gas and investing towards the development of existing renewable or free energy technology, we wouldn’t need a tax on carbon dioxides but once again they want us to pay for their failures. Better still if governments where doing their bit we would all probably accept doing our bit by paying a carbon tax until we slowly faze into a renewable source of energy.

I do believe I am overly biased. I have read quite widely on the issue and have tried to see both sides of the argument. Both sides have some dodgy information, so you have to try and weigh up what is credible and what is not. I’m certainly not going to say that sources like “An Inconvenient Truth” tell it like it really is. If we want to talk bias, then look no further.

As for the money trail, I’m more interested in watching who currently has an incredible amount of money who stand to lose out if we move on climate change. There is a reason they want to push the anti-climate change message. I mean, being objective, wouldn’t you say that one has as much to gain as the other has to lose. Both parties have a reason to push, though I feel there is more opportunity on the climate change side of the fence.

I never stated geology lies. In fact, I deliberately did not enter into a science debate. But lets just say that regardless of the natural cycle, one has to wonder if the markers for a natural cycle would be different than what they currently are, given the amount of carbon we generate.

“The comparative size of a crowd is not a measure of how correct the stance is. You might all be wrong.”

That is true, however it is likewise true that the person who shouts the loudest or with the most vitriol might also be wrong. Besides, the point wasn’t to say that there are x people therefore we are right. The point is that if this site is democratic in nature when it comes to issues it supports, then the numbers seem to indicate that this issue is indeed one that the member wish to pursue.

Skepticism is a core part of the scientific method. But surely when something is accepted as true by a body of scientists, it is not up to people in the street without specific knowledge or insight to continue such skepticism. At some point, people must accept something as true (if only for the time being).

And I feel it’s worth noting, that being a skeptic of climate science does not make the opposite stance any more valid, regardless of the number of people who may think so.

You’re telling me about free power from magnets, and you’re labeling me as discredited? Give me a yell when your house is running off-grid on magnetic energy and I’ll happily confess that … well … I don’t know. That the law of conservation of energy is busted … I don’t know.

Really, I can be serious. I’m not going to debate this further with you, it’s off topic and pointless. But this is my area of expertise, my bread and butter, and let me tell you, you’re wrong on this one.

As for making sense, it’s somewhat hard to be coherent when replying to you when your posts are rambling and disjointed. I was just doing you the courtesy of addressing all of your points.

Yes, I have read that. In context, it relates to the survival of the planet despite our actions.

And fair enough, it’s reasonable and logical.

But you have to consider, what does the planet care if we are not here. Sure, it has survived a lot, and will continue to regardless. And I would agree that in the long term there is little that can be done in the long term. Not on the planets timeline.

I’m not concerned about the planet … I’m concerned about us and our ability to be here. As far as the planet is concerned, we’re mere glints in the milkman’s eye. If we can reduce our impact even the tiniest fraction on that timeline, then it could mean a lot to us in ours. And it’s all well and good to suggest that we cannot make a difference, but how will we know if we don’t collectively try.

I agree for the most part, though with a few exceptions.

Alternative energy and cars go together well in theory, and in some cases in practice. I’d love to see real movement on this and the sooner the better. And government SHOULD invest in these technologies for government owned transportation services. I’d love to see hydrogen buses getting around like they have in the UK. And I’ve already commented on the desal plant – I don’t agree with it and I feel it should have been scrapped.

I’m not really a party player on either side .. none of them really appeal to me. I care more about the issues. If someone starts making more sense than the other then I’m happy to switch my vote.

But basically, it comes down to the role of government. I don’t believe it is their place to tell a company what they can and cannot produce, how to produce what they do, or what to charge for it. If people turned their backs on fossil fueled cars en masse then the companies would stop making them. That is the question … how do you make people choose the greener option, forcing the companies hand.

This IS the big picture, and making fossil fueled car more expensive to run than its green cousin adds a lot of incentive for people to go that way.

Of course, when it comes to cars, this is a real problem because they seem to be actively trying to hold the technology back. Hopefully this will change sometime soon, but I’m not holding my breath. For this reason I hope they exempt fuel from the carbon tax, and add more incentives for alternatives including ethanol. Maybe by the time the proper ETS goes live there will be some real options.

Stryks Buddy your truly starting to make no sense so you are either someone inside the government trying to make sense, and your not, or you truly have done no research at all, the truth is out there no mater how many smoke screens they throw at us.

What is the point of more dams something about two half fulls well what can I say to that, I’m shocked!!! Queensland just lost about a hundred dams worth of water probably the equivalent of 100 years supply of water. Actually,,,, what are you really trying to say? for example if I have one pool in my back yard and it rained constantly lets say for a week to fill it, what then, if I have two pools in my backyard, what, after two weeks I will only have two pools half fool? If your answer is yes to that well what can I say other than you need to go back to school first class maybe? If your answer is no then you didn’t make sense so you must be someone inside the government because they never make sense.

Ok i’ll try and explain to you how the real world works because what you believe is a fantasy world a world that is perfect. Remember the droughts we had and because of the droughts they had to rise the price of water to force us to cut back on it’s usage do you remember that or am I just rambling again, well what now? how come the price of water hasn’t come down in price, the dams are full in fact they are so full they have to release water because the dams can’t take it, you see the real reason why water went up was to make it look more profitable for future investors and the other reason what goes up never comes down. Remember the water police that drove around looking for people using their hoses when it wasn’t allowed they are still employed, Why? To keep on brainwashing us that water is precious and we need to use it wisely, why are they still telling us this? Because they will no longer exist if they don’t keep telling us this, and the governments need them to keep pushing the price of water up Why? Probably because they want to sell of the water and it will look more profitable to future investors.

It’s all about revenue that’s it, just like the new safety cameras, or did you think it’s about your safety, there is so many cameras around Sydney that the only times I have come close to having a bad accident has been the times I stare at my Speedo and forget look at the actual road, and get this they have privatised it to Macquarie Bank, So now we have a bank booking us and what do banks do best? you got it, they make money and lots of money you see the key word is money. Why would Macquarie Bank care about safety or better still know anything about safety, if they did they would realise that these so called safety cameras are dangerous. So get this you are coming up to a set off light and the lights go amber what do you do, do you speed a little to go threw the lights before they go red or do you slam your breaks on and get smashed in the back by a 10 ton truck because he can’t stop as quick as you.

It’s all about revenue, electricity has doubled in price in the last three years just by mentioning the word ETS, I can’t imagine how high electricity alone will go when they do pass their tax. My job in Sydney involves me with food business’s and I can tell you this, A 5 day sandwich shop 4 years ago was paying around $1,800 Per ¼ in electricity and now 4 years later the same shop pays around $3,800 Per ¼ and they haven’t even passed the tax yet. The point is these small businesses will simply close down and the sad thing is that it’s small business that keeps unemployment down not the government.

You ARE still rambling … NONE of this has to do with the topic at hand, besides which, what you say makes little in the way of sense.

Don’t try and tie me into a pointless debate about nothing. If you want to remain ignorant, then go ahead, but please don’t try and spread your ignorance around.

I’m not going to waste my time schooling someone who clearly wants to stay ignorant.

Suffice it to say that dams are not built for 1 in 100 year weather events. They are built to make optimal use of the average flow of a catchment area.

The fact is, 99% of the time, the flow is not enough to keep dams at their optimal capacity (less than 100% by the way). So yes, despite your inability to grasp my example, you wind up with two half empty dams.

If you don’t have enough water to fill one pool, then what is the point of two pools?

Still, you’re clearly going to start braying about the floods. So I’ll re-iterate, we don’t build dams for extreme and 1 in 100 year events. Why do you ask … why don’t we catch all of that flood water? Because in the long run it would serve no purpose. We cant keep that one dam full over the long term because the catchment simply does not produce that much water.

To fill a second with a freak flood would just serve to hold the water until it was used. After which, if would be empty – 99% of the time.

But please …just go away and learn about the subjects you are mouthing off about and stop spewing this nonsense.

Uh but you see if they mention the words carbon monoxide they would be liable that would be like they have always known that carbon monoxides are bad for our health but they have allowed it anyway. If you go to a restaurant and they poison you and you get food poisoning you then sue that restaurant so what happens to a government that has been poisoning you all your life. Like our water supply do you think the government would ever admit that they have been poisoning us with fluoride and chlorine all our lives, the proof on the dangers of fluoride is all over the web but people still believe that one of the most Toxic Chemicals known to man kind is good for our teeth, and how do they know this, it’s because adds on TV are telling them this, they have done no research on the dangers what’s so ever but because some corporation want’s to sell it’s toothpaste and advertise facts about their products, well then it must be truth. So because Dentists tell you to brush your teeth with one of the most Toxic chemicals known to man kind Fluoride then it must be OK, first of all Dentists only know what they are taught and even if they new do you think they would tell you, they want your teeth to rot so that they can stay in business and the health problems that Fluoride And Chlorine cause keeps their buddy’s in business who are in the medical field, Just like a great man once said his name was Dr Robert Beck, When he thought he had a cure for Caner he went knocking on the cancer councils door and said hey look I have a cure for cancer, their reply was to tell him to go away we are not interested in a cure but if you have a good treatment we are prepared to listen.
He also said a cured patient is a customer lost. They shouldn’t be punishing us with a Carbon dioxide tax but we should be suing the government for allowing this to happen by not investing in clean and renewable energy, the technology is out their they just need to pay the right people to perfect it.
NO TO A CARBON TAX, NO WAY, IT”S THEIR FUALT NOT OURS.

“I’m not going to waste my time schooling someone who clearly wants to stay ignorant.” funny that because that was what I was thinking about you so we are getting no were.

Any ways mate I respect your opinion I don’t want to attack you because you have a right to express your opinion and who knows sometime in the future my beliefs could be wrong and I may need to change my way of thinking this is why it’s good to have a debate about important issues like this thanks for giving me your time to listen to what I had to say something that Julier Gillied Didn’t do and lets agree to disagree for now.

Alright Stryks you are right and I’m wrong I was talking off subject but sometimes you need to talk off subject to prove a point and to try and make someone think outside of the square, and I respect your opinion you may not believe me but I do this is why it is important to debate something of such importance to see if we can find a real truth.

I truly understand your point and i my self have thought about a million times, what if what they are saying is correct and we didn’t do nothing about it but the problem is I’m yet to be convinced.

This is how it seems to me(I generalise and simplify as a matter of course!)
Big business isn’t jumping up and down,cos they’ll just pass on any tax burden to the consumer and go on to the next profitable venture.
“Middle Australia” is jumping up and down cos their standard of living is being threatened.
Low income Australia,already living below the bread-line,are the demographic I am most concerned about.(you know-little old ladies who stay in bed all day cos they can’t afford heating ).
The upper class have their fair share of philanthropists,and should be taxed accordingly.
The middle class are notorious for self-righteous protest over tax reform (eg-Qld flood tax and the current protests)
The lower class don’t have time for class-consciousness or political activism,cos their too busy making ends meet,(Australian and New Zealanders from poorer backgrounds have been shown statistically to be the group who contribute the most to charity,world-wide!)They help each other out of empathy and necessity.

Also-someone suggested we don’t need action on climate change in Australia because we are minor players in the pollution stakes.This is elitist,insular thinking.We live in a increasingly global village-socially,emotionally,financially and environmentally.(Case in point-Japan disaster)
It is way overdue that we take collective responsibility-spiritually,actively for the mess we have ALL created.!!The human animal can be a cruel,greedy beast,but we are evolving and I have faith that there are exceptional human beings working hard to find solutions to our many challenges.

Dude.

Seriously.

If there hadnt been 2 dams there, we would have had a million megalitres of water more downstream than what there was.

And as far as this whole conversation goes.. i lol’d… its all completely irrelivant to the topic at hand

Move on.

huh?

I want to reply to this…. but i just cant be bothered explaining life to you. Your an idiot… and im sure everyone else knows what i mean, so i dont need to explain it to them.

kthxbai

We carbon tax the power plants and there is no option but to pay. BUT we tax the manufacturing sector and the second option becomes all to apparent, the jobs are lost and the manufacturer moves to(or is replaced by another cometitor) a third world country with no EPA let alone a carbon tax so they can import the products and make a far greater profit.
Lets focus on one perfect example of the stupidity of this tax;
The steel industry:
In Australia we make around 7.5million tonnes of steel a year of which 1/2 roughly is exported, and because of our distance from asia we only import a small percentage of our needs. With this new tax our steel producers will no longer be competitive in our own country let alone on the international market. Now in china they alone make over 600million tonnes of steel a year so do you think it will take more than a minute to cover our supplies if this tax destroys the local producers?
Now here is the point that gets me angry and should fire a rocket up get up’s activity’s we use around 500kg’s of coal to make a ton of steel, similar to japan and the most modern euro countries, china uses OVER 650kg’s per ton, with very little or no controls on their emissions.
This means GET UP actually support an increase in global carbon emissions by destroying local industry, moving it to china and in steel alone burn over 1 MILLION ton’s more of coal with no gas cleaning to reduce airborne dust and pollutants. Could any one of you please explain how this will be good for carbon output?
Do any of you remember the closing ceremony of the chinese olympics and the controversy over their use of computer graphics because the sky was to smoggy from the surrounding steel mills, HALF OF WHICH WHERE CLOSED DURING THE GAMES!

I heard Simon on a news program yesterday. He stated ” there was 1000 people at the rally.” ( anti carbon dioxide tax)
When questioned on where the figure came from he said “The AFP”
The radio guy said ” I rang the AFP and they said they didnt count how many people were there”
Simon eventually admitted that ” I spoke to a policeman standing at the rally.”

What a distortion of the truth. I think there are many more. Don’t be fooled by this guy trying to get himself further and using us as his stooges

Stryks you and the “founders”of this group have totally FUDGED the second step, the local company who uses a carbon process, is taxed but the identically made import from say ,ohh,, CHINA or INDIA who have a non existant EPA let alone a carbon tax arrives at a LARGE discount to the pre tax local price let alone the after carbon tax price so with us all being a fair bit lighter in the pocket from the energy bill increases buy the cheaper option not the 25% dearer green local product. Have a good look at what will happen in the steel industry where the tax will actually result in MORE carbon being made per ton and then more again to import the finished product.

From reading the feedback on this blog it is becoming increasingly obvious that if this group wishes to remain CREDIBLE they need to conduct a poll by e-mailing their members with the OPTION to vote yes or no on weather to get involved in a campaign as from the feedback a vast majority are stating that as members they do not want to support this half thought tax!

Hey long haired hippy i don’t get it usually all the long haired hippy’s listen to what the Greens say, I know what i’m saying because i used to be one of them until i cut may hair and regained my inner power, mate you better go and check in the mirror someone may have cut your hair in your sleep and you haven’t noticed yet, if they haven’t cut your hair then i’m glad you are a long haired smart and awoken hippy because i used to be in a deep sleep but then again it only took one huge event to happen to wake me up and bring me back to reality.

Actually i think it was more like over 70% of Australians do not believe that man is causing catastraphic climate change.

You said “I was appalled by the disrespect shown by those who rallied in Canberra today” Why? Who is she, is she any different from me and you or is she sub-Human or something like that. Hey wake up she is Mine and your Employee and nothing more.

I was appalled that she didn’t come out and explain her self to the peopleto why she lied. I was appalled that she lied to the people of Australia both the ones that voted for here and the ones that didn’t. I wonder if politicians had to swear an oath to the highest court of Australia before an election would they still continue to lie.
I’m furious that she lied she should be in contempt of the people. Maybe those who showed disrespect towards her are furious as much as me because she has shown disrespect for us the people of Australia and continues to do so because she continues to lie about the lie.

I saw Simon on Sky News last night, with David Spears and it wasnt an impressive performance. Spears said a figure of $40/t, to Simon (About it being high) and Simon didn’t flinch. (To me thats about $640 extra on my powerbill alone ), Secondly, when the debate continued about the carbon tax, Simon arches up and blurts out “But lower and middle income earners will be better off” grinning from ear to ear. From where I sit, no information has been released about compensation, so how can he talking about if anybody going to be better or worse off. (I don’t classify a group of the population getting higher Govt handouts than the increases “Better Off”. (Thats a far Left, Socialist mentality on wealth redistribution)

Also been thinking how GetUp has got this things so wrong.
The conclusion I’ve come up with is most times people are asked to support a particular cause. Yes I support it or No I don’t (And the person doesn’t get involved). In most causes, if U don’t agree to get involved, it doesn’t have a direct impact on you. But the Carbon Tax has changed all that.

With the Carbon Tax, if U agree with it (Even know we know nothing about it), U show your support BUT if U don’t agree with it, it still has a direct impact on your quality of life in the form of rising prices. (Again we dont have the details BUT every Labor decision over the last 3 years has been on a base family income of $150k cut off). So if your family income is over $150k, U can expect the wrath of this tax. Dont forget this is 2x$75K, Tax is 2x$16k, so suddenly your $150,000 High income family, is actually net $118k, add in HECS or something, That takes another $12,000. add levies, other taxes, etc.
Then suddenly the $75,000 high income earner, is left with $50k per year.

Lets just wait until the Govt finally release something we can all calculate from. Then we can say “Hey, $50 per month is a small price to pay to save the planet”. If its $500 per month, then I will be saying, “Saving my family takes precedence over saving the planet”, and I hope U all do the same.

This is how i feel i’m all for saving the planet and cleaning the air we breath (and not a tax) so if any one want’s to come up with an idea that will truely fix the problem and not just a quick fix blanket solution they have my full attention to.

kelseycooke, this is where the problem lies you guys are doing a very good thing buy giving us the chance to debate such an important global event something that the government didn’t do by giving us a mandate on climate change in the last elections, but I’m sorry to say that you are confusing the hell out us by making such statements as “We’ve taken on a campaign for a price on pollution because we believe it’s the most effective way to fight for environmental sustainability in Australia”. Kelsey Cooke, Carbon dioxides are not a pollutant they are not trying to tax pollution, I know most people think it doesn’t make a difference but it does it make a huge difference and I I’ll tell you why, I have yet to meet one person that doesn’t want cleaner air to breath and almost every one I know and have spoken to want’s to clean the planet and the air we breath, by making such a statement you are winning more people by misleading them. You see most of us are on the same side and everyone want’s to clean the planet we just disagree with the method of cleaning the planet. We need a clear cut solution such as the development of renewable clean energy; truly it’s not that hard look how far technology has come in only the last 50 years.

I can’t see how a tax which is only a blanket solution is going to save the planet or our health. When a Doctor tells you to stop smoking because it’s bad for your health he means stop completely not even one cigarette he doesn’t tell you to smoke half the amount does he, because he knows that even if you smoke that one cigarette it still has the potential to kill you.

Kelseycooke and GetUp if you really want to make a difference to the planet and who knows maybe even make it into the history books you need to start a campaign to make government comply into the wishes of their people and that is the development of clean and renewable energy, that is the only solution the technology is already out there they just need to perfect it. We don’t need proof of Global warming we need clean air and if we concentate on that we will be able to reverse the affects of climate change, if it’s true and if it really is happenning.

“are you aware that if CO2 emissions fall below 250ppm that all growth (trees, plants etc) would stop?”

No, I was not aware of this. I was aware that if the total CO2 *content* of the atmosphere (NOT emissions) falls below 250ppm then most plant life has trouble sustaining itself in such an atmosphere. The exact point at which CO2 atmospheric *content* (NOT emissions) prevents *all* plant life from growing isn’t certain, but is suspected to be around the 150ppm range.

“there obviously has to be a point at which we say, hang on, we are not producing enough Carbon”

Um, no there doesn’t. The entire planet produces and consumes CO2 constantly without human interference. The issue is how much alteration there has been in that process due to human activity. The scientific consensus is that there has been a significant increase in CO2 creation due to human activity, with no commensurate process to remove the excess from the planetary ecosystem. This creates imbalance, and is bad.

The comment of all comments from our global warming guru Tim Flannery, now read this carefully, he said,

” I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

This was said by Flannery today in a radio interview. We may not see the results for a thousand years!!!! Can anyone believe this guy? In the past thousand years we have had a warm period, a little ice age, warnings of global cooling in the 70′s and of course warnings of global warming now. If the global temperatures 1000 years from now are cooler, how will we know if was just not another natural change as in the little ice age.

Surely now the followers of AGW must scratch their heads and wonder how we ever listened to the predictions of this man.1000 years!! So the billion of billions of dollars that we spend now may not show any effect for 1000 years? Doesn’t he know how to cover himself? If threr is absolutely no change he can now say, don’t worry, it may happen in 1000 years. Yeah right! In other words we will probably never see the effects in our lives or the lives of our children, grandchildren or great grandchildren but we may see it in the lives of our great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great, great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great, grandchildren.

This man is unbelievable.

“Actually i think it was more like over 70% of Australians do not believe that man is causing *catastraphic* climate change.”

Interesting misleading choice of phrasing there: they just believe mankind is causing moderately inconvenient climate change, hm? Polls from the Lowy Institute, Auspoll, The Climate Institute and Newspoll consistently show a clear majority of Australians agreeing that human activity is contributing to climate change.

What poll are you quoting from for this 70% figure, if any? And why do you feel the need to put the qualifier “catastrophic” in there when it’s unnecessary?

The list of 1000 scientists that doesn’t have a single scientist who actually knows anything about climate science on it? Sorry, this is the same scam “intelligent design” advocates pull when they try to show “legitimate dissent” with the theory of evolution: grab some people who have no expertise in the area but do have scientific expertise in some other area; con them into thinking that the anti-science position is “skeptical” and “scientific” through selective misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the available evidence (misinterpretation that wouldn’t fool a *real* expert for a second). Then rely on the general public’s blind trust in the title of “scientist” to get them to believe that there’s some sort of authoritative disagreement with the consensus reached at by all the scientists with actual expertise in the area.

Congratulations, all you climate change “skeptics” who oh-so-unskeptically accepted Climate Depot’s sensationalist “evidence”, you’ve just shown how gullible you are.

“For some families, you are talking about taking away their cars, their homes, their livelihoods. ”

And apparently it’s the climate change advocates that are the alarmists…

it seems to me is that the gillard govt is spreading the fear,wake up all you greenie morons this is the biggest con ever on the Australian people
i cant believe people are so Gullible

Just in case my last comment does not get in, did anybody hear Tim Flannery today say that if we cut emissions, we may not see the results for 1000 years?

“We may not see the results for a thousand years!!!!”

“The results” that are desired, as I understand them, are a lack of increased temperatures in the future. At this stage, reducing the increase is all that is possible. Please point out the contradiction between expecting no decrease for thousands of years and hoping to reduce the increase in the shorter term.

Yes, I am scratching my head…at exactly why you think Tim Flannery has said anything that negates the need to prevent further temperature increase if possible. Perhaps it’s because you understand less about AGW issues than you think you do?

Your last comment got in. See my reply as to why making such a big deal of Flannery’s statements about the time it would take for the temperature of the Earth to drop suggests to me that you don’t really understand what realistically addressing climate change actually entails. It does NOT mean trying to cool the Earth’s temperature to a lower level. It means trying to prevent further increases. That is “the results” currently being sought, so no, Tim Flannery has not said that “if we cut emissions, we may not see the results for 1000 years”, as you have inaccurately claimed.

I hope your understanding of other aspects of AGW are a little less sloppy than this.

Maybe Simon should have called any of the Newcastle Bus companies to find out that 47 coaches travelled down to parliment house.
And they would have sent more if they had them. The average coach seats 54 people so if my maths is correct that is 2538 people that travelled from Newcastle to Canberra on a Wednesday during a working week. Unless 1538 of them decided to go shopping instead of attending a rally you may have gotten 1000 people

Some one is trying to distort the truth. So the next question must be who has the most to gain from these inacturate numbers

In fact Neil, That is exactly what Tim Flannery said – virtually word for word. “If the world cut all admissions we would not see any change in temperature for 1000 years.”

Neil, didn’t see your reply, I guess they deleted it, I can’t see it. Anyway, So what your are saying is they want to maintain global temperatures at the level it is now. Then we are fine but a lot of scientists have a lot of explaining to do then for giving a false impression. They are saying the earth is too hot and we need to stop that. They say we need to stop it getting so hot to stop all the more frequent and extreme storms that they claim are happening but are not happening (but they say they are) , in other words cool it down a bit. So with what you have said what is the ppm they are aiming for to begin with in reducing carbon dioxide and what ppm to maintain the temperatures we have now?

Now to Flannery, Flannery was being asked about how much good the measures to reduce carbon emissions would do in terms of global temperatures. This is his answer and is a direct quote,

“Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years”

So I’m afraid you are wrong Neil, Flannery did say those exact words.

I hope you can get your facts correct next time and improve your understanding of what was said before accusing someone else of being sloppy.

If you want to reduce the pollution output of coal fired generators you tax the companies producing it, right? They actually don’t pay the tax because they are passing it on to those of their customers who havent worked out how to live without electricity. Are you with me so far? Wait a minute the power producers are still polluting. Shhh Dont you worry about that simple simon, you just be happy that this govt is finally doing something…yeah, its ok trust us… understand? No? Let me explain it again. How about, LOOKOUT the sky is falling..aaaah run.

I can not support getup in this. I think you’re wrong, sure we need to find sustainable ways to provide power eg solar and to reduce pollution … set targets and fine those who don’t comply, but…

Forget an ETS scheme and more taxation
There are more pressing needs that are not being addressed whilst all this BS is happening. I think there was a flood somewhere, everyone ok?
This Govt was not elected to waste time and resources the way they have been and are now doing now on this… Dream, Wake up Canberra!
This is merely grandstanding to the world and will achieve little… at a great cost to all Australians.
I shouldnt be political, but I simply don’t trust the THIS present Labour Govt, who are more concerned about staying in power and shoring Greens and Independent support then the good of Australia. NSW is a mess because of this shortsightedness and Australia will follow if we don’t curb this mindless extravagance.
You cannot convince me that this is nothing more then feel good ideology driven nonsense.

It will only introduce a new line of Govt departments to collect the tax, trade the certificates, govern it and then to reimburse the millions of Australians that this ill conceived scheme will disadvantage with higher costs right through the economy.
And there will be a new growth industry in the private sector to avoid it, to trade certificates. Macquarie bank will probably finance this growth and rip billions out of the economy, others will earn commissions trading certificates. Solicitors, accountants and new growth corporations will look for loopholes to exploit and government will shore up the legislation until it reads like the tax act. Who will be the winners umm, ordinary Australians?
The devil is in the details and it concerns that those proposing the idea can’t see it, or maybe they don’t want to.
There’s a win win solution that needs to be found, Australia’s climate is more important then politics. The proposed method to reduce pollution is flawed.
Ray Wilcox

I am all for Tony Abott and his stand on this issue and believe that the maximum degree of man’s effect on Global Warming is around 28% as has been quoted in figures given over the last few days in the Media, by some “so called experts” ( scientific ) in the field, who are definately pro the Human Effect – on Global Warming, whereas other scientific experts who are on the other side of the fence in this debate, have come out with a figure of 2% for man’s or the Human Effect on Global Warming. It depends who you want to believe… I think it is absolutely obvious when one looks at the long term historical records regarding the earth’s temperature and the evidence that has been collected deep in the ice in our Ice caps, ( North & South Poles and Greenland) that the earth has experienced warmer cycles and cooler cycles and at the moment we are experiencing one of the Earth’s warmer cycles, which has very little, if NOTHING to do with man’s effect on this so called, Global Warming phenomena.People like the ex Vice President of the US ,John Kerry, stand to profit many hundreds of millions, if not many Billions from their interests in the profits to be made in setting up the Carbon Taxing & Credit System on a world wide Basis. Are you not aware of this? The information is readily available on the net, if you would do asearch on John Kerry and his interests in the Carbon Credit Issue. I think that he and others like him stand to gain much, much more financially, than our so called “Radio Jocks”, who have nothing to gain, but here concern that the Australian public are being led down the garden path with all the false information being touted by these people like John Kerry and his cohorts.
So I am right with these so called “Shock Jock” Radio annoncers, (millionaires or otherwise) and the likes of Tony Abott in their stand on this highly exaggerated issue. Good on them all and I trust more people might Wake Up and Get Up and make a stand, against Carbon Tax and the so called Human Effect on Global Warming disinformation being spread about in most of the media today..

I don’t know about that Neil, to me something stinks, my understanding to that is that if it takes 1000 years to see a drop in temperature that means that it will take about 1000 years to see at least 1 degree drop in temperature, now if we revers the situation and do the math but in reverse it should also take about 1000 years for temperatures to go up 1 degree, I may be completely wrong but i cant help feeling like this.

I’m sure that in at least 200 years time they will have found some kind of renewable clean energy, I know that everyone will now think, but what about the ice that’s melting in the North Pole, but what they are not telling us is that the South Pole is getting bigger, so our sea levels will be fine.

I think those ideas are great however with the motorbike it’s battery still needs to be recharged for a few hours so still needs electricity I guess but the bike looks cool. I remember hearing as a boy about a perpetual motion engine, once again, bought out by the car companies so we stay burning fossil fuels so I agree with you point. The generator I’ll look at closer, haven’t got time gotta go out but will look at it tomorrow. On the face of it, it seems great. thanks for the info. If they are as good as they sound, I agree, they should be implemented.

I guess, Neil because for years we have been told that we need to reduce temperatures. We have been told we are melting ice caps, the sea level is rising, etc, so we need to reverse this ‘trend’. So are you now saying that the scientists want to maintain world temperatures at current levels indefinitely? No Neil, we have been told we need to cool off a bit.

that is why this comment from Flannery is so unbelievable and why we should make a fuss. I’m surprised he didn’t say 5000 years, Flannery sure knows how to cover himself.

Yes I agree, in the future technology will change and we’ll find ways to meet any challenges.

The question is will it save the planet? Especially after Tim Flannery said we may not see the benefits for 1000 years, even if the globally we all cut emissions. What a load of BS this carbon tax is, and Flannery? The guy who trusts scientists and tells us it may take 100 years? .

Interesting take on this issue, you are right, If we close down an industry there are many more countries who will take our place, some of which don’t give a stuff about global warming or epa restrictions
.

I guess you are someone who believe that the earthquake was from global warming. It wasn’t, earthquakes happen, they have happened as bad as that one in the past and will happen again in the future. If companies like Bluescope, Alcoa, and others like BHP or Rio think it’s not profitable, why would you think other companies would. Mining is a risk industry, companies use methods to work out the profitability of projects before the first bit of ground is broken. It is sad that you don’t care if companies go overseas, resulting in job losses, you are making a big assumption that companies from overseas would come here to fill the void. You also forget that international companies take money out of Australia.

If we are worried about the world we leave our kids then we owe it to them to make decisions based on truth. There is a lot of deception in this issue, our PM is responsible for a lot of it as are many climate scientists. I agree we should look after the planet we all live on, but we in this country are not the problem.

I have found that all the big polluters are in the Northern hemisphere (72% of total global emissions from 32 northern hemisphere countries) . This makes sense. You look at where glaciers are receding, they are in the Northern hemisphere. Only in South America is the other place but when you consider the loss of the Amazon Jungle (an effect from man) that is not surprising to have glacial loss because of the loss of trees in the rainforests of the Amazon that consume carbon dioxide. The arctic may be receding but the antarctic is growing. Can you see my point? The countries emitting the most – Russia, China, the EU, India and to a lesser extent Japan, how far are they from glaciers and the arctic region? Has anyone realised yet where the problem comes from? We are not the problem here. It is from those countries and those are the ones that must act for our future, they have the greatest responsibility. What we can do in terms of cutting emissions will have no impact at all. get the big emitting countries on board and we may have a chance to cut emissions. Until then, we will get nowhere.

To take collective responsibility, Billie, we all need to act, but we are all not responsible. It is not elitist or insular to say the ones who are causing the problem should act responsibly and work towards fixing the mess they are making. We are not making the mess and what we may do will add in no way to lowering temperatures or maintaining the temperatures we currently experience because unless the big emitters act, such as China that contributes over 22% to global emissions, we will get nowhere. If they don’t act, nothing will happen in terms of climate and even if we all act together, our climate change guru Tim Flannery has told us we may not know for 1000 years.

We will continue to search for answers for all of our challenges as we always have but we are spinning our wheels without the big emitters and even then it may make no difference anyway. Flannery was talking very slight, and that’s if we all work together.

I suppose you were just as outraged with the things people said about howard. I’m afraid you are in dreamland if you think it will make any difference. Even Flannery said up to 1000 years and even then a slight difference.

I agree with you however about solar, wind is no good but solar is technology that should be researched more and developed more. better solar panels that produce more, solar batteries that hold more energy in a smaller size. there are many avenues in the area of solar.

I agree with what you write but you are incorrect In your class system you should have said the filthy rich, the little battler, and the bellow lower class, you see they have given the middle class a new name now and we hear it all the time the middle class is now the little battler, this is why we need to stop another tax, because if we don’t the middle class will end up bellow the poverty line together with the lower class.

I would like to donate to see the shock jocks taken on. Where is the campaign info?

People take them on, they usually come out second best because the ‘shock jocks’ are using facts and asking pertinent questions. The reason they are called ‘shock jocks’ is because those they interview are shocked that they can be asked simple questions that are uncomfortable to answer because the answers are bad for the interviewees case.

Is it being a shock jock to ask how much the carbon tax will cost and how much good it will do? It is only because questions like that are asked that we find out from Tim Flannery that we may not see any results for 1000 years and that change Flannery said will only be slight. That is shocking, but it doesn’t mean the person asking the question is a shock jock.

Can you give a reference for the 28% please? That is one answer I have been looking for, the proportion man contributes. I haven’t seen those figures quoted, where did you get them?

So what happened to freedom of speach or are we tyring to completly destroy our freedom in this country, you don’t have to be such a sore looser just because some of us don’t like to follow the herd but if you really want to be one of the sheep the direction is south head for Canbera and ask for someone by the name of Juliar Gillied she can help you, Most of the shock jocks are there If you can’t find Julier Gillied ask for some one by the name of Bob Brown he is the head of the shock Jock’s and the true leader of the herd. I hope this helps and hope you get fulfill or your dreams and succesfully give away your rights.

You are so close to the truth but some people are not listening they are willing to pass a tax without any details because the government is explaining it as a tax on carbon or carbon pollution it’s the way of modern Governments they play with words, it’s like this, tell me one person who doesn’t want to clean the air we breath, you won’t find any, so they play with words just like global warming, but because Europe is experience some of the coldest winters in memory they now realise that word won’t work any more so they came up with a new word climate change and really this is the ultimate word but no one had thought of it from the begging.

so you see the extreme winter conditions experienced in Europe can still be blamed on carbon dioxides, even though we still sit here Debating Global Warming without realising that the agenda has changed, the talk now is climate change so lets forget global warming it’s off subject now. What they are not saying is that climate change could be happening because the poles are changing and I think without having any science background that there is nothing we can do about it and it has happened before because there is undoubtable evidence that it has happened before for instance take the woolly Mammoths for example most of them they find are still standing up which tells scientist that they where snap frozen, so if anything climate change might be bringing on another ice age.

How utterly ridiculous. If you honestly believe that the media in this country is not behind Julia and her muppets you must have been living under a rock for the past 12 months. How on earth do you think she got elected? The media convinced all those brain dead mindless morons to vote for Labor otherwise we would have the great scarey ‘workchoices’ to deal with again. If you think Alan Jones and the like are ‘shock jocks’ you again are misinformed. As an ‘extremist, denier, flatearther’ or whatever you people want to label those of us who have informed opinions (and living in a democracy we are entitled to our opinions and expressing them ) I live in fear for my children and what people like you are doing to our country.
Have a look at the left wing media ABC, SBS, Syndeny Morning Herald, The Age, and all Fairfax publications, Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10, SKY news and the list goes on, FM radio stations…shall I continue. If Alan Jones & Jason Morrison scare you – switch the channel – or better still save the planet and turn the radio off! At this point and time they are the only option we extremists have. And as our options reduce we will get angrier. We are not in living in Russia or North Korea.
I like to call myself a patriot. A patriot must be prepared to defend his country against his government.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say that radio shock jocks are dangerously wrong on this issue. It also includes the right to say that climate change “skeptics” are, by and large, gullible, bad at science, and far too in love with kooky conspiracy theories than is good for them.

I trust all the passionate “supporters of free speech” here will stand up for my right to say all those things. Or do you only stand up for free speech when you personally agree with what’s being said?

“Is it being a shock jock to ask how much the carbon tax will cost and how much good it will do?”

When you do not actually ask any such question, then pretend that you did, yes, that is being a shock jock: it is manufacturing shock in the audiences of the shock jock from a situation that is not remotely shocking.

You are completely wrong. Raising the temperature through putting CO2 in the atmosphere happens far faster and is much easier to do than reducing the temperature through CO2 removal.

“I guess, Neil because for years we have been told that we need to reduce temperatures.”

No we haven’t. Please provide a specific, verifiable quote from a specific person who has said that the current goal is to make the temperature go down.

I think my posts are getting stuck in moderation hell because I include hyperlinks in them. You’ll just have to search for the online transcript yourself to see that Tim Flannery is being misquoted by Stoney132 here. What Flannery actually said was this: “Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.”

“Now to Flannery, Flannery was being asked about how much good the measures to reduce carbon emissions would do in terms of global temperatures’

He was asked no such thing. As my posts keep getting stuck in moderation if I include hyperlinks, I’ll have to trust you to verify yourself that this is the actual question Flannery was asked, as per the online transcript of the interview, and that it is quite different to your mischaracterisation of it: “In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures FALL BY if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.”

The goal of preventing climate change is not, and never has been, to make global temperatures fall. Climate change scientists understand, and if you actually bother to check what they say directly, are making it very clear, that once the global temperature goes up, the change is for all intents and purposes irreversible. They want to prevent, or at least slow, further climate change coming about from temperature rises. That is why so many are so anxious for any kind of action ASAP: the longer the delay now, the bigger the temperature increase from CO2 emissions in the future.

Tim Flannery has said nothing that hasn’t already been said. You just don’t understand what he said. I can understand your confusion, since you appear to be getting your information from shock jocks rather than reliable sources. His concern about the efective impossibility of making the temperature go down after it has gone up is precisely why it so important to take action to prevent more irreversible temperature rises in the future.

Seriously Neil what you just said can go both ways, and a cospiracy theory is no longer a conspiracy theory when you have facts but mostly importantly science is based on theories but without a public debate we can not possibly now which side has the correct theories, can we? and just because there are probably more than half that are skeptics doesn’t mean that it is bad science. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say that that the Government are dangerously wrong on this issue.

If it happens far faster by putting CO2 in the atmosphere well then how come it took us over 100 years to even realise and how come up until the 80′s science thought we where heading towards another ice age, and why is climate change happening because of CO2 levels and not because the fact that the poles are shifting which has happend before, you see what science thinks today will possibly be wrong tomorrow, science is based on theories.

YES !!! Get Up needs a system for people to vote.

I DO NOT believe carbon dioxide is the driving force behind behind climate change.
If you care about the environment (like me), Change how YOU live your life and lead by example.

I wish Get Up would drop this subject of climate change.

Have just read through some of the posts and skimmed others especially the ones from names like genuine environmentalist and long haired hippy and posts full of abusive language. There is obviously a campaign to target getup by the followers of the climate sceptic band wagon.It would be good to do a poll of all the members ,also getup have an issue page where you can vote on the most important issue to you.What worries me is how zealous are the posters from the no carbon tax camp and capable of subverting the true picture.

I’m not supporter of Labor or Liberal or any politician in this country. I’m aware of the pollution and I’m here to write about this issue, I don’t understand how come Getup become so PRO to this issue when Labor hasn’t given a strong clear idea on how this tax is going to work. Why can Getup put pressure to the government to get REAL answers before they try to convince us to support this campaign? I like to participate and support lots of issues that Getup has pointed out but in this case it’s not relevant till the government tells us how exactly this tax will work. I believe we have to take action but what about if this tax doesn’t work in the long term, will Getup take responsibility of it on misinformed people? And is Getup looking into other optional ways to address this problem so they can have choices for us to believe what the best option is? Governments should know better than us about the pollution, it’s not a recent problem, they’ve been in denial for too long and we’ve been ignorant about the facts because of course they don’t want us to know the real deal. So why do we have to pay for their own doing? I’m happy to pay for some of it but first the government should take the GST out of the basic groceries, take the parking meters away which create stress on the daily basis, make the tolls free and create transport efficiency and fair to everyone, then we can talk about this “tax” that at the moment we don’t know if it’s going to work.

Goodness Neil, you are clutching at straws. I have heard the likes of bolt and jones interview, they ask questions. The problem is the questions they ask are uncomfortable for the likes of Flannery because the answers are bad for the climate change cause. It’s amazing when a dj is called a shock jock when he is merely trying to get the truth. I guess it makes you uncomfortable too, Neil because you believe in climate change and the answers such as Flannerys when he said,”the results may not be seen for 1000 years and even then it will be slight.” That belts the climate change cause, people are not so naive as they were a year ago and are now questioning things. If the truth is uncomfortable for you Neil, it is because the truth does not matter to you. More and more scientists are turning from AGW because as more and more data is discovered, more and more questions are asked, previous claims by climate scientists are now looking unlikely.

Neil I can only assume you are a bad researcher or just don’t care about the truth. Go to bolts blog and go to MTR Today March 25 and you will see read the interview. Here is part of the interview with Andrew Bolt, word for word, pay particular attention to the very first question he was asked and compare it with what I wrote.

” Bolt: How much will it cost to cut our emissions by the Government’s target of 5 per cent by 2020 and how much will world temperatures fall by as a consequence?

Flannery: Sure. We do have economists on the commission who will be giving a very in depth look at that this evening and I don’t want to pre-empt their assessment of the various cost options, but in terms of how much it will cut temperatures that really very much depends upon how Australia’s position is seen overseas …

Bolt: No, no, we’ll get onto that, Tim. I’m not going to dodge that. The argument is indeed that we have to set a lead and the world has to follow and on our own we can’t do blah blah, but just looking at the basic facts so people can figure it out for themselves (that) the world needs to come on board. On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?

Flannery: See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation…

Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences – about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?

Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.

Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.

Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. ”

Neil Flannery made the claim about up to 1000 years until we see results 2 times in that interview. Check it out. So you can see I have not made it up, Flannery said it and said it twice.

Then later in that interview Neil, this,

Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.

Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.

Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.

Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.

Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?

Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

See the last comment Neil, If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Do you see Neil? He said it and said it twice. If the CO2 has to be absorbed then new technologies will not cause it to absorb. In fact some carbon will always be added, would you agree? To absorb Carbon dioxide you have to look at what will absorb it. Trees we know will. But you cannot get away from the fact of what Flannery said Neil, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel.

read mt answers above Neil, Flannery said it, it is a matter of record and is in transcript if you bother to look.

So really Neil, what is your point, you have just admitted Flannery said it, why did you make out he didn’t? What is your explanation of the quote you have just included in your comment?

Get lost GETUP!

Its time all Australians researched the real political agenda and compromised science behind Global Warming, or the so called Climate Change fairy tale.The slightest investigations outside the Propaganda of Government PR, Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC network will reveal a lot about the lies behind this subject and the International Climate scientists who have been silenced because their work exposes the corrupt and twisted false science of Anthropogenic Climate Change.The shock jocks have found the true story which is a shocking betrayal of the Australian people by their Puppet Prime Minister and the twisted and possibly Fascist World view of the Green Party.

You are seriously trying to say that for years now we haven’t been told we are getting too hot and we need to do something to reduce temperatures? Is that what you are honestly saying Neil? You are the first person I have heard say that the intention is to maintain current temperatures. Why do you think people like Bolt are questioning people like Flannery and asking how much will this reduce temperatures by? If what you are asserting is true then why doesn’t Flannery just say what you have said Neil? It’s probably because, Neil, that it is not what they want to do. Wouldn’t they be open with us. cough, cough, no seriously, they do tell us the truth don’t they?cough, cough, cough, sorry I have a cold.

I could come up with a long list of insults currently being called to people who are unconvinced about AGW, Billie. Are you saying you don’t condone those insults being made at ordinary Australians from AGW believers?

I’m just not sure that I can support you in this or any other endeavours you may feel like seizing upon without you first postulating your beliefs to those who give you money for your campaigns. I am also very unsure about the carbon tax as the impact on me or my family has not been fully explained…the only explanation so far is that we have to do it so that we are not left behind! There is no overwhelming support for the imposition of a so-called carbon tax, and the promise that it will ALL be returned to subsidise people for the extra costs just makes me even more suspicious…after all 10% is going to the United Nations for them to dole out. If the government was a little more honest and say something like…”Shit, we’ve got no money left, tax receipts are way down, we’ve promised to put the budget back into surplus by 2013 and we don’t how else we can do this because the miners rolled us”, well, I think we may be a bit more accommodating. Oh, and another thing, a lot of my friends, rusted-on Labourites are pissed off that the Greens are running the joint!
Please don’t assume that you know what’s right for us, as that is what is annoying a lot of people at the moment.

Hey Micheal you sound like someone who does do his research, so research this i just found out that juliar gillied is not just a big fat liar but she is also a trator and that the media has been keeping a big fat secret from the Australian people that Julia Gillied along with others are up for treason charges and yet she still became Prime Minister. GETUP Looks like they won’t post my link to it so to all you out there do a google search and type in the search julier gillard up for treason and then second link down. I’m Shocked but not surprised now it’s all starting to make sense why they are trying to push this tax. If we as Australians don’t wake up soon it will be to late.

One way or another Australia will one day move to a Greener (as in trees and grass nothing political here) self sustaining country. The real question is “Is a Carbon trading scheme an effective way to do it?” The Pollies should be debating that, not slagging off at one another whether they are believers or deniers about climate change.

Climate change will happen, as it has in the past, as earthquakes have happened randomly in the past. The planet, Mother Earth is dynamic. All our science has achieved is to monitor and predict, like they do the weather. It seems to me that the big financial investments and opportunities are in the predicting side of the climate change argument and of course opposition will be countered robustly to protect income. How do “Experts” (capital E to show my respect) manage to travel the globe without funding and donations? And why wouldn’t they want this money tree to continue? I would.

Reality check, we want to reduce pollution (world wide or just in Australia). What is achievable? Australia sounds like the right answer to me because we have no say in any of the developing countries where incidentally we have sent our pollution to over the last decade and those economies find it impossible to forsake the advantages they are now finding, that we simply take for granted.

Wow, now I’m full circle, so to me the answer is not whether I’m Green or “Brown”, (my God is this for real?) Seriously, the debate is what is the most effective way to control pollution and to sell the benefits to the plebs (ie you and me) WIN WIN is the only solution, so come on Pollies do what you are elected to do. “Move Foward”

“No we haven’t. Please provide a specific, verifiable quote from a specific person who has said that the current goal is to make the temperature go down.”

What about the chant of Warmies everywhere?

“Ho! Ho! It’s Hot In Here! Too Much Carbon In The Atmosphere!”

Or Al Gore and friends wailing that “The Earth Has A FEVAH!”

Mate, I don’t want my comment to get held up because of links, but all your hysterical apocalyptic claims about the Earth being too hot are out there. Google is your friend… and mine.

So GetUp is PRO-censorship now?

I want out. How do I get my name off your lists and get you to stop counting me as a “supporter”?

I originally signed up to help fight Labor’s mandatory internet censorship scheme. I have no idea what you people think you’re doing now.

More tax? Silencing dissent? You people are out of your (collective) tree.

hahahahaha

it’s a joke..right?

That’s a good point, Getup is fighting for a carbon tax but do not know anything about how it will be implemented, in fact no one, including the Labor party, knows anything about it it other than the name of the tax.

Why are you fighting for it Getup? You are assuming it will be good but have no details to show it will. Getup do you really know what it is other than a theory of why it’s good? If you say yes, then give us the detail that the government has not released yet. The most basic thing would be a carbon price. We are 3 months from the new senate which will make a carbon tax possible but we don’t know anything about it. The thing I hate about Labor is that they cover up, they hide things. They won’t let us know about the NBN for example, is this tax going to be the same? They just tell us what they are doing but won’t tell us the details.

How about this verifiable quote Neil from Flannery,

“If all major emitters adopt a similar level of effort to our 5% reduction target in 2020 (or better) and continue to decarbonise thereafter, we’ll cap the temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees later this century and temperature will begin to drop at the end of this century”

He said this in a letter to the editor of The Australian on the 28th of March 2011. (Check it out Neil and contrast it with the interview with Bolt) Why would he mention the temperature will drop if it was not a goal? Incidentally this quote which you can find on the Climate Commission website is in response to the interview that he gave on radio where he said up to 1000 years to get a slight decrease in world temperatures. He’s changed his tune in a few days hasn’t he? He’s gone from up to 1000 years to 89 years to see a temperature drop. And they say the science of climate change is settled. What rot. Flannery has now shown what his word is worth, he’s trying to coverup what he said. I’m sure the interview with bolt won’t be quoted on the climate commission website.

As for political promises, if she was to make a stupid promise such as, ‘make it mandatory for all people worship cats’ then she would take it to an election, then the people could decide if they wanted to worship cats .

A question Stryks, you seem to be an independant thinker , there is a long list of lies that Julia and Labor have told the public, such as “I have no speech notes at the Labor launch in Brisbane’ or how about this now famous one “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” or this beatuty from Swannee in relation to the Carbon tax, “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out,” and another, this little pearler, “Mr Swan said the federal government would look to its citizens assembly for further guidance on the issue of climate change.

The assembly would see 150 randomly chosen Australians consider the need for a carbon price over the course of a year”.

What happened to all those Stryks? Where are the 150 people? Oh I forgot, they meant polticians didn’t they? If you don’t think they haven’t lied or don’t continue to lie, you are like them and have lost sense of what it is to tell the truth.

How about, oh I don’t know, make the polluters pay a carbon tax that they will add to their prices and then then pass it onto our kids?

You assume Stryks that new technologies will produce lower prices to compete. Companies will go offshore and we will lose our childrens jobs. Even if new technologies do produce lower prices,products from China are so cheap.How would you get around that? Introduce tariffs on Chinese made products? That won’t work, we’d be shooting our selves in the foot. They are our biggest customer, we would lose more industries if China said we’ll go elsewhere for raw materials thankyou very much. We rely on them more than they rely on us.

It is a complex issue Stryks, there are not answers as simple as a carbon tax.

I think they go by the rule that if you believe in a lie long enough it becomes the truth that’s why they continue to lie about the lie, it’s disgraceful I know but apparently it does work , take example of some people in this forum. What they don’t realise is that people are getting smarter not stupider because we have the internet to research for our selves, maybe this is the real reason why they want tho filter the internet.

In the last 1000 years we have had at least 2 warm periods and 1 cool period (little ice age). Given that the world obviously has natural warming and cooling cyles, is it reasonable to assume that during the next 1000 years, that we may have more of these natural changes?

Of course after that Flannery wrote to the Australian giving a different version of what he said in terms of seeing no result for up to 1000 years, but he can’t get away from what he actually said, that it may take 100′s of years and up to 1000 years to see a slight decrease in global temperatures.

I wonder alarmists and people who believe every word that scientists say on global warming (but only the pro global warming scientists of course, others are not reputable are they ) I wonder if they will believe what flannery said last week. He is a paleontologist so I guess he’s a scientist too……..not a climate scientist but a scientist nonetheless who believes we may not see any change for 1000 years.

I also read last week on this blog that the percentage of man’s addition to global warming is 28%. If 28% is true then 72% is a natural change. Then how long will this change continue and when will it naturally start to cool? You see, the scientists seem to only forecast given that all things in the natural world remain constant. They can’t look at it any other way because they don’t know when it will change. We know since the Little ice age that things have gotten warmer but how long will this trend last? We may find that in the future the trend will go cooler and then I suppose global warming will no longer be an issue.

The message I have got for years from scientists is that all change is from global warming. Since asking questions for myself I have learned about natural cycles, different historical periods which were either warmer or cooler and also been able to look at claims made by scientists and their followers and assess for myself on the available data whether the evidence stacks up. I have found it doesn’t. I believe man does affect the climate but have questioned how much. We should seek for cleaner technologies, yes, but it has been shown to me that many things we are told by the likes of Flannery, Gillard, pro AGW carbon tax devotees are simply not true. Apparently since 2000 the global temperatures have leveled. We aren’t told about this, I only found it out by researching. Actually the IPCC president mentioned that in 2008 but was that shouted from the rooftops or just kept hush hush? I think we know the answer. There is a lot of deceit, withholding of information and plain lies about this very important issue. It’s about time we have more truth than scaremongering from all sides.

You have forgotten one thing also take away from Macquarie bank the licence to fine poor inocent hard working Australians because of these so called safety cameras, they should be called revenue cameras, a bank booking us, what will they think of next, isn’t it a confict of interest after all banks are there to make money not to provide safety.

I’m heartened that others on here are speaking up about GetLeft’s malicious, conniving and biased AGENDA. I thought this site was originally set up to support peoples views from ALL sides, and encourage people from ALL walks of life, and ALL OPINIONS to get involved. This ACTIVIST (read; radical extreme left) group only wants to hear, and advocate, extremist left opinions. No wonder its called GetLeft, GetExtremist and GetF…ed amongst other things. This group doesn’t even TRY to hide its leftist extremist agenda. When it first started, it tried, but failed when it willfully left coalition HTV cards off their system (the choose your vote/party program). But now, they can’t even be bothered pretending they are for ALL sides.

Another example; this site refusing to allow a petition to uphold abortion being illegal. Now, I’m strongly pro-choice, and wouldn’t sign an anti-choicer’s petition in a pink fit. BUT, they have the right to have their petition on this site. This site really came out with their true colours when they disallowed that petition. This site is anti-democracy and anti anything other than extreme left wing socialist propaganda. I’m glad that they are admitting what we all knew from the start. They only advocate democracy for the extreme left.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I’m a labour fanboy. I’m not. I’m not a particular fan of any of them, and for my part, I see no difference between the lies from one side and the lies from another. I don’t defend lies from either side.

I merely point out that a promise to an electorate is only as strong as the support the electorate gives to that promise. Given enough feedback, a party or leader would be forced to change their stand on an issue.

LIES! There is OVERWHELMING SUPPORT *AGAINST* this tax.

Didn’t you learn ANYthing from Saturday’s election? You clealry are delusional and don’t live in the REAL world. NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX!

“try to form sentences from which meaning can be wrung (sic)”

Er, I suggest you try your own advice and learn English.

“radio shock jocks”

“dangerously wrong”

I think you need to calm down, get a grip and take a reality check. Stop over-dramatising everything. Those talkback hosts (there is no such actual thing as a ‘shock jock’ (a term coined due to a talkback host in America hosting his show in his undies hence ‘jocks’ – it does help to learn what the term means before copying everyone else who parrots it like gullible sheep) are right, and YOU are the one wrong and very, very deeply ill-informed on this issue.

“When you do not actually ask any such question, then pretend that you did, yes, that is being a shock jock: it is manufacturing shock in the audiences of the shock jock from a situation that is not remotely shocking.”

PMSL, that is absolutely NOT what a ‘shock jock’ is! I feel sorry for you as you are making an absolute FOOL of yourself. You (and others of your ilk) who are using the term ‘shock jock’ are akin to children using big adult words out of context, and not knowing at all what the word actually means.

There is no such actual thing as a ‘shock jock’ in Australia, at least. There has never been one single shock jock here. The term was coined for a talkback host in America who hosted his show in his undies (hence ‘jocks’) for the ‘shock’ and who discussed SEX (not political issues). It does help to learn what the term means before copying everyone else who parrots it like gullible sheep and using it in the incorrect context. Alan Jones and others like him might be conservative right-winger hosts, but he is not an actual ‘shock’ ‘jock’. Unless you know something about his attire in his radio station that the rest of us don’t….

The idea of Jones, or anyone else for that matter, talking to people about sex in his studio, near-naked, is nauseating, so please cut this ‘shock jock’ misnomer once and for all. Thank you.

“our poised,coiffed pm”

PMSL, turn it up! Or should I say, get your hand off it.

“If you disagree with this campaign, we hope that you’ll be involved in campaigns that you’re passionate about in the future.”

How about allowing and encouraging your members who disagree with YOUR campaign, to create and get involved in an anti carbon tax NOW, on THIS site? Why not have 2 campaigns on here? 1 for, 1 against? Also, your ‘team’ as a site, has no right to take up for one cause or another. This site was supposed to be for ALL people, from ALL walks of life, and I thought the management were not to take a ‘side’ on anything? The ‘Get”Up” ‘ management ‘team’ have NO right advocating as a team for anything. You have no right or jurisdiction to take a campaign for one side. This site, is a lie. This site, is ANTI-DEMOCRACY. At least have the GUTS to come out an admit you are a FRONT for the dangerous extreme left under a democratic ‘disguise’. At least have the COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS to admit what is obvious to all by now. This site was set up on manipulation, lies and deceit.

Ummm … Perhaps you can demonstrate to me how that sentence form is grammatically incorrect.

Fair enough. But I assure you that your point of view would appear FAR more valid if you posted and made some kind of argument.

I’m stating my view. Instead of calling me an idiot for having one, why don’t you state your own?

good chance you won’t post this. Name calling is always done by the team that is loosing and has no real chance of winning against truth.

well…surprise, surprise, my censorship has been lifted. Thankyou.

are you going to take the “shock jocks” on or the truth behind the issue?

What I can’t figure out with Get-up is this.
In 2007 you ran a noble campaign called “Promise Watch, 2007 – monitoring politicians on election promises”
How does this square with your support for Gillard’s CO2 tax, which is a blatant breaking of an election promise?
To quote P. Hanson(Ms)- please explain?

It’s very simple A LIE IS ONLY A LIE WHEN IT SUITS YOU, when it doesn’t suit you a lie is the truth a bit like the way that Juliar Gillied thinks, she thinks that even though she said there will be no carbon tax under her government that she didn’t lie because we knew that she wanted to pass a carbon tax, you see she thinks she didn’t lie, so that little peanut of a brain that she has, has convinced her that her lie is the truth.

Hi all,

Thanks so much for getting involved. I’d first like to express my thanks for the active debate on this page – this has been the most commented-on blog post in the GetUp blog history! Congratulations on making that happen.

Secondly, last week, I responded to some of your concerns about this campaign. As a reminder, we’re running with this campaign because our surveys, emails and feedback shows it’s what our members want. That said, we know that the whole membership will never be united on every issue, and we encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts – the good, the bad and the ugly. The most important part of any campaign is our members, so please do keep speaking out about our campaigns, whatever your thoughts might be.

Also, I’d just like to address some of your concerns in reaffirming our independence as an organisation – our campaigns are designed to put pressure on groups who are most likely to be able to make the changes that our members want to see. For an idea of how this tends to happen, from 2007 to 2010, GetUp has ran 2 campaigns against corporations, 4 against the opposition and 1 urging the Greens to change their position. The remaining 24 were directed at the Labor Government. We’re committed to putting pressure on the groups who can enforce change where it’s needed. Also, around 80% of donations come from small, individual contributions – so everything we do is fueled by you, as members. We’re happy to take these discussions of independence further – but here’s the place for discussing our campaigns. If you’d like more information, you can email us at info@getup.org.au.

Finally, I’m sorry for those of you that have been put off by the campaign in some way – we absolutely don’t mean to stifle difference of opinion, and hope you’ll continue sharing your thoughts.

If after reading my responses, you’re still concerned or need questions, feel free to email info@getup.org.au – I’ll pass on your feedback to the rest of the team and endeavour to reply to your questions as quickly as possible.

Thanks for all that you do,

Kelsey
for the GetUp team

Wake up Australia!

(1) Given that China is building scores of coal-fired power stations of Gigawatt capacity each year, what measurable effect, if any, will the proposed carbon tax have on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? ON temperatures?

(2) Given that the Government believes carbon to be at the root of anthropogenic global (greenhouse gas induced) warming will the Government ban Australian exports of coal to China and other nations?

(3) The Treasurer claims that it will only be the ‘major polluters’ who will be affected by the carbon tax. Question: How will the ‘major polluters’ recoup this cost? Answer: from consumers of course. Hence the cost of buildings, transport, food, electricity and manufacturing will increase thereby adding to the already significant cost of living. Most people would regard this as an additional TAX.

(4) Given the findings of the IAC Review of IPCC (containing irrefutable evidence from IPCC participants attesting to political interference, bias, lack of transparency, failure to respond to critical review comments, vague statements not supported by evidence) can anyone still seriously consider the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report as a justifiable basis for the Australian Government’s climate change policy?

(5) In particular, the IAC found that Working Group III of the IPCC (concerned with mitigation of climate change) used economic models based on many assumptions and uncertainties. (The inference is that WGIII’s projections are useless.) In this context it is relevant to ask what assumptions have been made by Treasury in its modelling of carbon tax? Further, how many of those assumptions have been met in practice? How realistic are those assumptions? What effect will the Government’s proposed carbon tax and ETS have on industry, inflation, and unemployment?

(6) If, as is claimed, ‘climate science is settled’ why has NASA very recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the construction and attempted launching of a satellite specifically designed ‘to clarify the role of aerosols in the climate system’?

(7) In view of the fact that the European ETS has been ineffective in limiting atmospheric CO2 concentrations and has facilitated widespread and large scale fraud, what evidence is there that the same problems will not beset an Australian ETS? What will be the cost of regulating these schemes?

(8) Given that China, India, Russia, Canada, Japan and the USA have either rejected or deferred ETS as a means of limiting CO2 emissions, why is Australia adopting this irrational policy?

(9) China’s policy is far more rational than that proposed by the current Australian Government. China is increasing the proportion of power generation by nuclear reactors; it is also striving for more efficient use of energy in addition to addressing environmental concerns (land use, planting of trees, better public transport etc.) (Given that Ms Gillard has ruled out nuclear energy, how does the Government propose to increase the proportion of ‘clean energy’ on a scale which will meet Australian domestic and commercial needs into the future and how long will it take to achieve this? While successive Australian Governments have done very little to increase the proportion of clean energy available to consumers, by contrast France now has 80% of its power supplied by nuclear reactors without any significant safety problems. Notwithstanding Europe’s ETS, France is so far the only European nation to have achieved this. It is paradoxical that the same people who vociferously bemoan CO2 emissions have, by their influence, prevented nuclear power generation in Australia.

(10) What proportion of the money spent by consumers on petrol, diesel and other hydrocarbon fuels is already being harvested by the Australian Government? How much does this amount to over the past decade? What has the Government done with this revenue?

The Eco Marxist Frauds are dinosaurs in our society, organisations like Get Up that are Left Wing funded and trawl university campuses for the feeble minded are a dying force in Australia. Get on the Conservative Train – we are going places.

Yes Davejohnson40 I suggest we all get on the conservative gravy train. It certainly is going somewhere. If you happen to land the job as CEO of the Commonwealth Bank you will be getting $16 million. And if you are lucky enough to get a CEO’s position in America you will ‘earn’ 400-600 times the worth of the average worker. In Australia the figure is about 200 times. All though there are people who get paid more. Eg 16 million. Before it was privatised the CBA, CEO was the lowest paid of the 4 big banks getting $350,000. In Europe the figure is 9 times. A humungeous difference. You can now see why the opposition both here and in the USA are leading the charge against the Carbon Tax. Its just the rich (who mainly support the Liberals and Republicans) looking after themselves. Not only don’t they want to pay more Tax but they don’t pay what many people think they should be paying. Remember Alan Bond, years ago he was paiding 8 cents in the dollar. remind me how much Kerry Packer was paying in Tax. These people have the lawyers and accountants to minimise their Tax. They also have the power to influence public opion. Eg the mining Tax. Remind me again who the Billionairs were who were leading the charge against the Tax? Unfortunately people like you are convinced by the media and shock drops that the Government is out to get you. So instead of looking after yourself and looking at the facts you are, in fact, looking after the million dollar men. (not too many women in this group).
Oh and nuclear power. Did you know that not only has the CEO of Fukushima disappeared the but the company is now a basket case and and seeking $25 billion in emergency loans just to stay afloat. Perhaps you and some of the other proponents of Nuclear power could chip in a few thousand Dollars to the poor company. Or arn’t you a true believer anymore.

Because Simon says. Get up is not a democracy. Who knows how many members are for or against the CO2 tax.

Ljr, good points above. I agree there is reasonable scientifc consensus, which may be entirely wrong, or overestimatey the impact or even underestimately the impact. We are talking about best guess probability curves.
However, no point arguing with those 100% certain on either side.
But hopefully some who are skeptical about the certainty on either extreme will have a better idea of what is going on in the mainstream scientific community. I’m assuming the article is accurate. No guarantee that info on this topic is, but it fits with the general picture I have picked up.
I fall in the middle. Humans probably are heating up the Earch and this may have a net significantly negative impact.
You avoid making a comment about the effectiveness of the carbon. What do you think?
Trying not to have a selfish view, my main criticism is around efficacy. I don’t believe it will be a cost effective and will not do enough on it’s own to address the problem of global warming. Suggest it may have a place, at a low rate to help raise $ for R&D on more effective Low CO2 technology, where perhaps a more effective lies.

Not completely true TeKKY. I expect that the high emmitting industries are looking after their shareholders interests – although a lot of the comments I have heard are about maintaining an even playing field. Which seems reasonable?

However, you seem to be ignoring all the people who (1) believe AGW is bunk and (2) others like me who think we probably are impacting temperatures, but don’t think a carbon tax or ETS will be effective addressing global warming, is not cost effective, may have negative impacts that outweigh the benefits, might have a place at a low rate should not be seen as the main game for a solution. Others just question the timing.

Agree with you main point Frantic. Good example.
There may be partial temporary compensation, but watch that dry up.
No fair playing field. Little impact on CO2.
Suggest best way woud be to look at population growth and individual and business consumption and waste while developing more cost effective technologies.

Thats a bit weak Stryks. Your approach means there is no point in listening or putting stock in politicians election campaigns and promises.
We just let them get away with doing whatever is politic at the time.
I prefer to hold them to account so our vote is more meaningful.

Nikkoh, Agree CO2 was not seen as pollution in the usual sense decades ago.
It probably depends on your definition of pollution and how you interpret it.
Suggest: harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.
Some of the waste and byproducts we produce have an immediate impact on health.
Others chemicals may take years, but increase risk of cancer or mutations, or other illnesses.
If you consider harm from a human health perspective, then it is a bit of a stretch to call CO2 pollution.
Although some might argue resultant global warming will cause starvation, stress, and other health impacts.
Others might define harm more broadly.

I understand the response to recognising people are linking CO2 to a negative word to further an argument.
Words and ideas are important in how we view the world and impact the decisions we make.
However, whether CO2 from human activities should be defined as pollution or not is probably less important than whether it is causing global warming and to what extent, and if so, what is the best way for humans, and Australians to deal with it.

As long as people know about the funding, what is the issue, it is a voluntary organisation.

Also you either support Simon’s positions or you don’t – and again you can decide whether to participate.

The main issue I have with funding is whether Get-up is potentially influenced unreasonably by the unions or other groups while getting a soapbox as a significant independent activist group.

Simon sometimes reminds me of Julian wikileaks Assange. Good on them for getting off his bum and organising stuff, but with an air of narcisim and self importance. Same as many people in the public eye, I guess. A shared human trait I guess.

Jamie, it depends on how well the compensation covers an individuals costs and how long it lasts. I guess the compensation will be based on an average. What if you have a low income but above average CO2 tax exposure.
What will be the governnments defiition of low income. I know couples on 40k/60k each, 100k total household income that that don’t have a lot of disposible income.
Still, too early to say until we have details rather than mother hood statements.
Once the tax framework is in place the $/t rate and compensation is at the whim of whoever is in charge.

8000 is pretty good. Say 100,000 get up members free to protest and relatively nearby.
Maybe 80% support CO2 tax.
10% of these got off their seats to protest.
Not bad for Australia.

I guess it’s just one of those things that depends on how you look at it.

On the one hand, I get where you’re coming from and in an ideal world, I agree.

On the other hand, if they make a promise and it turns out that people don’t want what they promised, shouldn’t they bow to the collective will of their constituents?

Or put another way, everyone is in an uproar about Julia breaking the promise to not have a carbon tax. But now she has effectively promised that she will. So by this logic, if she listens to those who want her to scrap it, would she not be breaking another promise? And if she DID scrap it, would those who object to the carbon tax be shouting “Liar Liar” as much as they are now?

It seems a bit hypocritical to pick the promises they are allowed to break based on what your stance is on a given issue.

Can anyone help with reliable best guess information on what impact a signifcant drop in human CO2 is likely to have on global temperatures and what output should we be aiming for to strike some sort of equilibrium or at least minor temperature increases?

There seems to be a lot of inertia to CO2 and climate systems. What is our practical ability to make a meaningful difference. If the world manages a 5% reduction will this make a difference in temperature? If we made a 50 % reduction will this make a difference in time?

The optimal solution might be doing what is most cost effective to reduce climate impacts and spend the rest dealing with the impacts – moving people from low lying areas and other areas that become unproductive – addressing the food/water impacts etc

Awwww Kelsey, thanks for the lovely comments. Now run along and put your tongue down the back of Juliars pants where it belongs.

The only thing that is absurd is your support for a tax that is going to hurt every Australian , what is your real agenda ? are you communists ? are you about redistribution of wealth per the Lima Declaration , or are you a bunch of uni students with half baked Lefty ideas.
Also I would like to say that as opposed to your rent a crowd turning up at your carbon tax rally the people going to the anti carbon tax rally are real people
, if you really want a carbon tax why don’t you have the backbone to say take it to an election and see if you and your union mates are right and the people want this tax that is going to hurt us all.
But Gillard and co haven’t got the guts for that have they.

CO2 is not pollution.
It makes up 1/27 of all greenhouse gases.
The planet has warmed by 0.5 C over the last 160 years.
If you tax big business they WILL pass it on to the consumer
For what ? I still can’t see how this will combat climate change, in any way shape or form !
The big question is, can be alter climate change….remember CO2 = 1/27 of greenhouse gas.

Remember this, we are all carbon based life forms, thus a tax on Carbon it the tax of all taxes. A super grab for money, nothing more, nothing less.

The fear campaign is “global warming” itself.

Feel free to believe in whatever you want. If you want to support this “climate change” industry by giving your own money then that’s your decision. But this expectation to for the rest of us to do so is absurd. I don’t want to support “climate change” profiteers and I shouldn’t be forced to.

This question was answered by Tim Flannery 2 weeks ago. He said if the world (the whole world) cut emissions tomorrow, we may see a slight drop in global temperatures in hundreds, maybe 1000 years. A slight drop, in up to 1000 years. Those are his words, I’m not making it up. Makes you think twice about why we are looking at a carbon tax doesn’t it?

Why we are looking at a carbon tax? how else will Julier Gilled and her Government Pay for all stuff ups, and how else can they bring us back into a Surplus which will never happen anyway.

You have forgotten one thing the governments think we are dumb and some of us are look at the ones that want to ban radio jocks by taking away theirs and our freedom of speech, they have forgotten what it means to live in a democracy, they think we don’t need to know because they know best. The one thing that getup has given me is a sense of security because i now know that only some of us a dumb judging by the comments and the people that are against it, the only problem is that from experience the minority always rule and sadly they will pass this tax unless the ones who are against it start screaming even louder because they are still not paying attention.

Are you serious if they had more dams downstream they could of caught the million of megalitres of water that went downstream.

Hi Michael Yes Tim Flannery did say if the world (the whole world) cut emissions tomorrow, we may see a slight drop in global temperatures in hundreds of years etc.

But then he went on to say that if we don’t do anything then the world will get hotter and hotter with devestating consequences. The best example I have heard is that if you put a blanket on a small child and they are already too hot and you add more blankets then the child will just get hotter and hotter. CO2 is like a blanket and the more we produce the hotter the world will get until it won’t be worth living in. So yes a Carbon Tax or ETS is absolutely neccessary. I know its a difficult concept to understand but I do hope the above explanation simplifies it for you.

No I do understand the concept Ian, but I question first of all, the extent of man’s contribution to global warming, second we have a natural ability to absorb CO2, the oceans for example are huge sink holes for CO2 but there are a few ways CO2 is absorbed and for Australia, a scientist, John Christy has said that for the amount of CO2 we produce, it is naturally absorbed so basically Ian, if our environment gets rid of CO2 naturally so that our environment is not overbalanced then we are not a part of the CO2 problem. By all means, use greener technology, I am all for that but if we can absorb CO2 fully and naturally currently, then taxing us will do no good if we are not the problem and in this country we are not.

As I have said before, 95% of worlds emissions come from North of the equator, 95% Ian. It is a theory of mine but where are the glaciers receding Ian? The arctic ice is apparently melting isn’t it? Compare the north hemisphere and the south and tell me where you think global warming would affect? The north that produces 95% of global emissions or the south that produces 5%? To me the answer is clear.

I’ve been looking at geosquestration which is an interesting technology that aims to capture cO2 before it goes into the atmosphere. If successful it would help with coal power stations. The CO2 is then stored or possibly put directly into the ocean where it is dispersed.

The thing is Ian that the impression is given that we are not doing anything to cut emissions and that is blatantly untrue. We have been putting solar on our houses and even some businesses, we went from leaded petrol to unleaded and LPG. We have cleaned up the air in our cities, we recycle, we do numerous things that cut our emissions. Farmers use better conservation and farming practices which help the environment. (did you know farmers pay for water but even if they don’t get their full allocation they have to pay for it anyway?) So it is unfair for anyone to say we have not done anything.

I can tell you that I have cut emissions through the use of solar power for one. I have cut up to 2 tonnes just through this method alone. I want add over the next year or 2 another 9 panels to get full capacity. What that means is that I will have no reliance on coal power. I will save over 6 tonnes per year.

But what I point out is that we have been cutting emissions, we are not sitting on our hands and doing nothing, we have not been putting the extra blanket on. Other countries are adding a few. That’s why I feel it is dishonest for anyone to say we are not doing anything. (not that I am saying you said that, but plenty of people give that impression)

Although we disagree on things like the carbon tax Ian, I do agree that nuclear power should never be on the table. The risks are too greta. What if the earthquake had completely obliterated that plant in Japan? How much radiation would have escaped and spread all over the world? No that is one technology that although is kinder to the environment in terms of power generation, it also comes with incredible risks, risks that I am not prepared to have here without a fight.

Ian first of All the issue now is climate change it’s now no longer global warming you see after Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in the past few years they had to change the word to climate change because the word global warming could no longer work. Ian it’s absolutely ludicrous that you and others continue to use global warming as an example to the biggest lie of all time, you see if you do your research and I mean really do your research don’t just use what you have heard on television as your only form of information you will realise that number one science knows that we have had ice ages before but their has never been any evidence of a global melt down and yes carbon dioxides have always been around.

You see us humans have only been able to measure temperatures in the last hundred years before that we didn’t have the technology to be able to keep track of our temperatures, so even if you want to believe that global warming does have some merit how could we possibly know that this event isn’t normal after all science doesn’t have any real data to compare it to.

The only reason why Nassa seems to show slight increases in temperatures is 1 they have repositioned their measuring devices and 2 because of the technology boom instruments nowadays are somewhat more accurate. So you tell me now based on that information do you truly agree to give away to your government your hard earned money even though we only have been taking temperature readings in maybe only the last one hundred years from devices that at the beginning where not accurate. Well the only thing that really concerns me is that we don’t head for another ice age or another snap freeze like the woolly mammoths which they are finding still standing up which proves that they were snap frozen, this is a bigger threat than the Global warming/climate change LIE, there seams to be some evidence and concerns within the science community that the poles maybe shifting, this concerns me more than the lies they are feeding us.

Actually it’s been only 131 years, they can only go as far back as 1880 and believe it or not it has only been since 1980 that more accurate devices have been used.

Micheal this Motorbike that the japanese have invented does not run on batteries it runs on magnets you never have to charge it, it will run forever for free or at least the life of the motor bike. There are many ways to get free energy, but the problem is free enrgy that’s why they wont release them.
Do a torrent search on a file calle free energy you will be amazed what is in there, you will know if you have the right file if it’s 148Meg. I have tried one of these which is called Hydrogen on demand and it really works, it didn’t work for me as good as they said but it was my first time and i possibly made a mistake somewhere along the line. Micheal i was able to get an extra 100k’s out of a full tank by using tap water by turning it into Hydrogen but without storing it you make it on demand and feed the hydrogen gas into your airflow.