Cool reception for Australia's climate tax: poll

Jul 02, 2012
Protesters hold placards as they attend a no carbon tax rally in Sydney on July 1, 2012. Australia's new carbon tax received a cool reception in a poll Monday, showing Prime Minister Julia Gillard's mechanism to tackle climate change is unpopular and her government on track to lose office.

Australia's new carbon tax received a cool reception in a poll Monday, showing Prime Minister Julia Gillard's mechanism to tackle climate change is unpopular and her government on track to lose office.

Only 33 percent support the measure introduced Sunday, according to the Nielsen survey published in the Sydney Morning Herald, with 62 percent of the 1,400 voters polled opposing it.

The centre-left Labor government has launched a drive to sell the carbon tax, which imposes a levy of Aus$23 (US$23.50) per tonne of on about 350 of the country's top polluters.

Gillard's party was well behind the conservative opposition led by Tony Abbott, with percentage support split 42-58 between them once minor parties' shares were stripped out.

Protesters march during a no carbon tax rally in Sydney on July 1, 2012. Australia has introduced a controversial carbon tax in a bid to tackle climate change, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard hailing the move amid opposition warnings it will stifle industry.

Australia, one of the world's highest carbon emitters per capita, has long debated taxing such pollution, but the issue remains hugely divisive and has sparked large protests.

The prime minister said Monday it could take months to change opinion.

"There has been a hysterical fear campaign from the doomsday merchants who have tried to convince people over the last 12 months... that we'd see, for example, the coal industry go out of business," Gillard told ABC Radio.

"I think we will see people in the months to come, working out what carbon pricing is meaning for them, and working out what it is meaning for the nation."

Gillard's measure involves a fixed price for the first three years before switching to a market-based similar to that of the European Union.

The opposition has claimed that businesses will pass on the cost to consumers, raising the cost of living, and argues it will also hurt the booming resources industry.

"The whole point of this ... is to kill off the , kill off the gas industry, and over time to switch entirely to ," Abbott said.

"Now, the problem with switching entirely to renewables is that they are vastly more expensive."

Explore further: Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia brings in contentious carbon tax

Jul 01, 2012

Australia on Sunday introduced a controversial carbon tax in a bid to tackle climate change, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard hailing the move amid opposition warnings it will stifle industry.

Australia begins selling pollution tax

Jul 11, 2011

Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard began Monday the mammoth task of selling a bold new tax on carbon emissions to sceptical voters, in a battle that could make or break her fragile rule.

Australia sets carbon price to fight climate change

Jul 10, 2011

Australia Sunday announced plans to tax carbon pollution at Aus$23 (US$24.74) per tonne to help battle climate change, as it moves towards an emissions trading scheme similar to that of Europe.

Australian parliament passes divisive carbon tax

Oct 12, 2011

Australia's lower house on Wednesday passed a contentious new tax on carbon pollution to combat climate change which has angered many voters and threatens Prime Minister Julia Gillard's hold on power.

Australia cuts number of firms liable to new tax

Jul 07, 2011

Australia has halved the number of companies needing to pay a contentious pollution tax from 1,000 to about 500, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Thursday, stressing only big business will be hit.

Recommended for you

Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

1 hour ago

Ospreys do not carry significant amounts of human pharmaceutical chemicals, despite widespread occurrence of these chemicals in water, a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Baylor University study finds. ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2012
Prime Minister Julia Gillard ran on the promise that there would be no carbon tax. As soon as she was elected, she pushed forward and enacted a carbon tax.

She and her party deserves to be removed from office at the next election.
Jeddy_Mctedder
3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
carbon taxes are fraud, so is carbon trading so is any 'tax' associated with a nebulous measurement of an 'output'.

it's tough enough just to collect 'sales' taxes directly from small businesses. If the governments want a more environmentally planet. it's simple------------

increase gas and diesel taxes. and earmark all the funding from this to subsidize alternative energy and environmental schemes.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2012
Not by any defintion of "fraud" that I know of.

"carbon taxes are fraud" - JeddyBedWettie

My guess is that you just aren't bright enough to know what "fraud" means.

Fraud: A false representation of a matter of factwhether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosedthat deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Sorry BedWetter. There is no fraud, contrary to your BedWetter claim.
freethinking
Jul 02, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
Jul 02, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
Not by any definition of "fraud" that I know of.
Then your vocabulary could use a boost:

fraud [frd] n

3. something false or spurious

And in case you don't know what "spurious" means:

spu·ri·ous (spyr-s)
adj.
1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

and:

1. not genuine or real

4. (Rare) illegitimate

And since this tax is based on estimated (guessed) rather than measured quantities, and since there's no evidence that doing so will reduce consumption sufficiently to make any difference to the climate whatsoever, this tax lacks authenticity and validity in essence or origin, and is based on illegitimate principles.

So therefore, it appears Jeddy_Mctedder has a more extensive vocabulary than VD.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
I wasn't aware that the tax was false or spurious.

"3. something false or spurious" - UbVonTard

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
UbVonTard is correct. There is no way to measure the fuel consumption of Australia. Import/Export rules, oil, gas, coal production taxation records, and production records just won't do it.

"And since this tax is based on estimated (guessed) rather than measured quantities" - UbVonTard

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
I wasn't aware that the tax was not genuine or real.

"1. not genuine or real" - UbvonTard

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
The law was legally passed by the Australian legislature, so it is both valid in essence and origin.

"1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin"- UbVonTard

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Not in the real material universe. Here is is a perfectly valid and authentic law. Why else would Conservative Vermin like yourself be getting upset at it?

Are things different on planet Conservadopia?

"this tax lacks authenticity and validity" - UbVonTard

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
I wasn't aware that the tax was false or spurious.

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid.
I guess you're still having trouble with the definitions. It is spurious.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Uba is correct. There is no way to measure the fuel consumption of Australia. Import/Export rules, oil, gas, coal production taxation records, and production records just won't do it.
Polluters aren't paying for fuel use, but rather they're paying per tonne of carbon they "release" into the atmosphere.

Sure, you can use a formula based on fuel consumption, but this isn't sufficient to describe all the carbon released from all sources. Some industries use heat to run processes which release carbon beyond the fuel consumed. Some use carbon sources to directly create products which don't release carbon to the atmosphere.

And, it's quite arguable to even call carbon-dioxide a pollutant to begin with.

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid.
brianweymes
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
It's very hard to have sympathy with these people when their per capita income is 40k a year. This isn't some $1 a day country whose people will writhe in poverty if they have to pay a little extra for utilities. Sorry, but to be completely blunt, future generations will have absolutely no sympathy for wealthy people like this, those who mock science and would risk the future of a habitable world for a little more comfort.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Yes. Many people use gasoline as a dessert topping or as a cheap replacement for bottled water.

"Polluters aren't paying for fuel use, but rather they're paying per tonne of carbon they "release" into the atmosphere." - UbVonTard

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
I wasn't aware that the tax was not genuine or real.
Its stated purpose isn't genuine or real.

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
And when driving on dirt or gravel roads, your odometer reading doesn't reflect the distance you have traveled.

The same is true if you use bigger tires, or over or under inflate them.

You poor Tard...

"Sure, you can use a formula based on fuel consumption, but this isn't sufficient to describe all the carbon released from all sources." - UbVonTard

To the Audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
The law was legally passed by the Australian legislature, so it is both valid in essence and origin.
You're describing origin, but not essence. But anyway, the purpose of the legislature is to serve the people's interest. The people are overwhelmingly against the tax. Therefore the people's interests have not been served. Therefore the law lacks authenticity or validity in essence or origin.

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
You mean the stated purpose isn't to foster greater fuel efficiency and spur the development of more efficient means of consumption and alternatives to carbon based fuels?

"Its stated purpose isn't genuine or real." - UbVonTard

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Which it is clearly doing by fostering improvements in consumptive efficiency.

"But anyway, the purpose of the legislature is to serve the people's interest." - UbvonTard

To the Audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
It's very hard to have sympathy with these people when their per capita income is 40k a year. This isn't some $1 a day country whose people will writhe in poverty if they have to pay a little extra for utilities. Sorry, but to be completely blunt, future generations will have absolutely no sympathy for wealthy people like this, those who mock science and would risk the future of a habitable world for a little more comfort.
This is a false dichotomy. It isn't one way or the other. This tax will have no effect on the climate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Yes. Many people use gasoline as a dessert topping or as a cheap replacement for bottled water.
Have you never heard of plastic? ...iron production? ...concrete production? ...timber production? ...fuel production? ...paper mills? These are but a few major industries which release carbon in quantities not directly equal to fuel consumption.

To the audience.... Yes, he really is that stupid...
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2012
Untrue and irrelevant.

Your claim is fraud.

"The people are overwhelmingly against the tax." - UbvonTard

You have been exposed as the Fraud here.

To the Audience... Yes he really is that stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
"Sure, you can use a formula based on fuel consumption, but this isn't sufficient to describe all the carbon released from all sources." - Uba
And when driving on dirt or gravel roads, your odometer reading doesn't reflect the distance you have traveled.

The same is true if you use bigger tires, or over or under inflate them.
"Direct emissions from the industrial sector come from both the on-site combustion of fossil fuels (54 percent of direct emissions) and from certain non-energy-related industrial production processes (46 percent of direct emissions). For example, heating iron ore to produce iron directly releases carbon dioxide (CO2). Similarly, the cement manufacturing process requires heating limestone, which also results in the release of CO2."

http://www.c2es.o...dustrial

You poor Tard...

To the Audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
Just as no single vote will have any effect on an election.

Hence voting is a fraud.

Just as no single step toward the bathroom will stop you from soiling your diaper.

Hence you should just sit there and crap yourself.

"This tax will have no effect on the climate." - UbVonTard

To the Audience... Yes. He really is that stupid.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
You mean the stated purpose isn't to foster greater fuel efficiency and spur the development of more efficient means of consumption and alternatives to carbon based fuels?
Right.

"This is widely thought of as the most effective and least costly mechanism to reduce carbon output and reduce the level of climate change that is occurring"

http://www.carbon...bon-tax/

It won't affect the climate at all.

To the audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
But anyway, the purpose of the legislature is to serve the people's interest. - Uba
Which it is clearly doing by fostering improvements in consumptive efficiency.
This is presumptuous. It doesn't necessarily serve the people's interest to be more efficient. Otherwise, you might attempt to force people to stop eating meat, as it's less nutritionally productive per acre than corn. Or even to stop taking baths, as bathing is an inefficient use of water resources.

To the Audience... Yes, he really is that stupid...
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
The people are overwhelmingly against the tax. - Uba
Untrue and irrelevant.
Did you even read the article we're commenting in? It is true, and highly relevant.

"Only 33 percent support the (carbon tax) measure introduced Sunday, according to the Nielsen survey published in the Sydney Morning Herald, with 62 percent of the 1,400 voters polled opposing it."

Obviously, your counterclaim is a fraud.

You have been exposed as the Fraud here.

To the Audience... Yes he really is that astoundingly stupid.


ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
This tax will have no effect on the climate. - Uba
Just as no single vote will have any effect on an election.

Hence voting is a fraud.
This is a false analogy. One vote can indeed have a significant effect on an election.

Just as no single step toward the bathroom will stop you from soiling your diaper.

Hence you should just sit there and crap yourself.
Obviously, another false analogy.

To the Audience... Yes. He really is that stupid.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2012
Now with a tax on respiration, zionist bolshevik banksters are slowly strangulating the economy of planet Earth.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Which are additional steps toward the bathroom.

"and from certain non-energy-related industrial production processes" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard would rather soil his diaper than take any step since no single step completes the journey.

To the Audience... Yes. He really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
So in your view the Australian Carbon tax is a conspiracy to destroy Australia.

"Right." - UbVonTard

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Science tells us otherwise. Current emission rates of CO2 are unsustainable, as is the rate of fossil fuel consumption.

Only on Planet Conservadopia and it's forest moon Libertaria are unsustainable practices, perpetually sustainable.

"It doesn't necessarily serve the people's interest to be more efficient." - UbVonTard

To the audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
The flutter of one butterfly wing can indeed have a significant impact on the global weather system.

"One vote can indeed have a significant effect on an election." - UbVonTard

For the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
UbVonTard has now filled it's diaper.

"Obviously, another false analogy." - UbVonTard

For the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
Your claim was that the tax is a fraud. Fraud has nothing to do with popularity.

Hence your claim is untrue (fraud), and Irrelevant (popularity).

"It is true, and highly relevant." - UbVonTard

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
Clearly UbvonTard is incapable of using a dictionary or comprehending the meaning of the word "fraud".

"Obviously, your counterclaim is a fraud." - UbVonTard

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Heatwave threatens US grain harvest

An intense heatwave is threatening havoc with this years US grain harvest, burning up hopes of blockbuster yields and sending prices soaring.

http://www.ft.com...zXQr9mj9
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Which are additional steps toward the bathroom.

Venditard Detardian would rather soil his diaper than take any step since no single step completes the journey.


To the Audience... Yes. He really is that stupid.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
So in your view the Australian Carbon tax is a conspiracy to destroy Australia.
Straw man argument. I made no such claim.

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Science tells us otherwise. Current emission rates of CO2 are unsustainable, as is the rate of fossil fuel consumption.
What do you mean by, "Current emission rates of CO2 are unsustainable," Why aren't they sustainable? Is there some physical limit we've reached to which I'm unaware?

As far as fuel consumption is concerned, a gradual shift to alternative energy sources has already begun ...without carbon taxes.

To the audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
The flutter of one butterfly wing can indeed have a significant impact on the global weather system.
Now you're spouting gibberish.

For the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Venditard Detardian has now filled it's diaper.


For the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Your claim was that the tax is a fraud. Fraud has nothing to do with popularity.
Strawman. It is a fraud because democracy was shortchanged in a democratic system. Therefore, the law lacks authenticity or validity in essence or origin (it's a fraud)

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Clearly, Venditard The tard of tards is incapable of using a dictionary or comprehending the meaning of the word "fraud".

"Fraud has nothing to do with popularity." -VDtard

To the Audience. Yes. He really is that stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Heatwave threatens US grain harvest

An intense heatwave is threatening havoc with this years US grain harvest, burning up hopes of blockbuster yields and sending prices soaring.
There you go with the scaremongering again.

What's this have to do with the Australian carbon tax?

Why are AGW alarmists so dishonest?