Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Day 29 of a broken promise

28 comments

Residents on the NSW Central Coast will be slugged with bigger bills as more councils and businesses are added to the list of big polluters, the opposition says.

Federal opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said adding more organisations to the list of big polluters that will have to pay the carbon tax will also increase confusion surrounding the controversial initiative.

He said 25 more councils and business will join the 290 entities already liable, a ridiculous and punitive move for councils that are attempting to reduce their carbon emissions.

“It is absurd that the carbon tax is now penalising councils, which have already done the right thing in trying to reduce their emissions,” Mr Hunt said in a statement on Friday.

Two councils on the NSW Central Coast, the Gosford City Council and the Clarence Valley Council, will now have to pay under the scheme as they have been deemed “big polluters”.

Mr Hunt said the Gosford City Council had been targeted because of the Woy Woy landfill despite the council investing in an energy-generating methane capture project, highlighting confusion surrounding the carbon price.

“Both these councils pride themselves on caring for the environment but their residents will still be hit with bills in excess of half a million dollars,” Mr Hunt said.

“How can councils and businesses be certain about how much carbon tax they need to pay when the list continues to change?”

The move to add more companies, mainly energy organisations, to the big polluters list will affect households, Mr Hunt said.

“The carbon tax will flow through most significantly to households through higher electricity and gas prices,” he said.

“The sooner the carbon tax is scrapped the better and the coalition remains committed to repealing the tax if elected at the next election.”

Source

Written by Sinclair Davidson

July 29th, 2012 at 12:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

«
»

28 Responses to 'Day 29 of a broken promise'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Day 29 of a broken promise'.

  1. ALSO:

    WA households are being hit with rate rises of up to 15 per cent as councils blame the carbon tax for the soaring cost of electricity and rubbish collection.

    Some councils estimate the tax, which came into effect on July 1, will cost them up to $1.4 million in the next financial year alone, with ratepayers to bear the brunt through increased charges.

    Ratepayers are being told the tax will affect the cost of street lighting, building materials, utilities, waste management and road construction.

    Paying 15% more on West Australian rates in order to “stop” tsunamis in Aceh, flooding in Bangladesh and tornadoes in Kansas. Fuck me dead.

    sdog

    29 Jul 12 at 3:09 am

  2. This carbon dioxide tax seems to be a tax on everything.
    Gee could Tony Abbott be right?

    Nearly a 10% increase in ‘big poluders’ in one month, and the tax itself increases at 7% per annum.
    This is out of control and ridiculously so.

    Keith

    29 Jul 12 at 6:36 am

  3. Barry O is on the side of the Greens with all of this … assisting with the ” greening ” as a way of reducing the carbon footprint and the need to worry about the breathing tax in in NSW
    Highlights that what policies has become, like here in VIC, all you need to do is get enough votes to beat the others. Standing up for the people who voted for you smacks of Labor values

    Aussieute

    29 Jul 12 at 7:37 am

  4. The curse of the Greenslime doen’t end. Miranda Devine has a worrying item about the NSW planning rules which allow rezonings that effectively deny people’s usage of their own land, be it agricultural or recreational. She’s quite right to pillory the current state government for not fixing it.
    That’s what the media are supposed to do, but many of them forget this during the tenure of Labor governments.

    Blogstrop

    29 Jul 12 at 8:02 am

  5. Straight from the Great Bendigo City Council 2012-13 Budget Adopted_Budget:
    “The increase [in the Contracts, materials and services] is in part a result of the new cost impact of Carbon Pricing – $614,100 Eaglehawk
    Landfill emissions and $1.03 million other Landfill emissions, … and an increase in the EPA Landfill Levy of $1.38 million.”

    Council does not identify additional carbon tax costs for items like electricity and other items.

    Blotter

    29 Jul 12 at 8:46 am

  6. How is this tax collected?
    Can the entities hit with it just refuse to pay it?
    A national tax revolt over a revolting tax!

    Winston Smith

    29 Jul 12 at 9:20 am

  7. Tough love for the local Council here.
    The Tip fees are outrageous when sexed up with Green taxes based on an urban myth.
    We have plenty of bush tracks, that’s where many are going.
    Call it necessary therapy for Council..

    Alfonso

    29 Jul 12 at 9:42 am

  8. Thanks Aussie.

    Miranda Devine has a worrying item about the NSW planning rules which allow rezonings that effectively deny people’s usage of their own land, be it agricultural or recreational. She’s quite right to pillory the current state government for not fixing it.

    I read that and it is mind blowing. Such a “simple” regulation is so destructive.

    It is so, so bad and must end.

    .

    29 Jul 12 at 10:06 am

  9. Nearly a 10% increase in ‘big poluders’ in one month, and the tax itself increases at 7% per annum.

    sounds like the lease on that ALP owned building in Canberra rented out to the ANAO

    RodClarke

    29 Jul 12 at 10:10 am

  10. Like I’ve said a few times, prominent union figures, ALP and Green politicians are all up in arms about the structural change that is happening in response to the rise in the exchange rate, saying that something must be done to resist it. Yet these same people think the structural change that would inevitably come from a carbin pwice will be seamless and even beneficial because the ‘transition’ is ‘managed’.
    at least with the rise in the exchange rate, there are options for substitution towards imports, whereas there really is no good substitute for a lot of ‘carbin intensive’ forms of energy, hence production must decline…
    The carbin pwice is a great illustration of Hayek’s knowledge problem. What’s the bet the lefties won’t get the lesson???

    Skuter

    29 Jul 12 at 10:33 am

  11. The carbon tax revenue should be funnelled straight back into the NDIS and widened to include not only the physically disabled but also the financially crippled voter.

    Splatacrobat

    29 Jul 12 at 10:53 am

  12. Gillard said she would publish a list of the “500 big polluters” before the Carbon Dioxide Tax was intoduced… Another LIE ! Does anyone have a list of “Great big polluters” as it stands at the moment ?

    AML1618

    29 Jul 12 at 11:24 am

  13. I do, AML1618.
    It’s the Canberra phone book.

    Winston Smith

    29 Jul 12 at 1:37 pm

  14. AML the list keeps changing
    Barnaby is Right has a post and you can follow the links from there
    http://barnabyisright.com/2011/07/25/the-500-biggest-polluters-exposed-everything-the-government-is-not-telling-you/

    val majkus

    29 Jul 12 at 2:53 pm

  15. The People are going to have to FORCE the opposition to TOTALlY Renounce the global warming untidy nashuns commo fascist revisionist recividist revanchist CRAP,on pain of punishment politically and personally .MAKE the pollies SERVANTS of THE PEOPLEasthey should be ? After all who pays their wages and perks:

    Borisgodunov

    29 Jul 12 at 4:25 pm

  16. AML 1618, the list of entities that pay the tax is here. And yes it changes all the time. Just like the list of people that pay income tax. When an entity exceeds the threshold of 25kT CO2 (or equivalent) they become liable.
    Winston, given the very small number of entities a tax revolt seems quite unlikely.

    SteveC

    29 Jul 12 at 5:01 pm

  17. given the very small number of entities a tax revolt seems quite unlikely.

    You fucking moron; add these columns up and then stuff your very small numbers up your arse.

    cohenite

    29 Jul 12 at 5:34 pm

  18. Comprehension lesson for you cohenite: I said small number of entities. Look it up if you don’t know entities means.

    SteveC

    29 Jul 12 at 6:10 pm

  19. I’m an entity and I’ll be paying.

    Jumpnmcar

    29 Jul 12 at 6:24 pm

  20. Well, alright, stick your small number of entities up your arse.

    cohenite

    29 Jul 12 at 7:47 pm

  21. Well, alright, stick your small number of entities up your arse.. Oh I see my mistake.
    FIFY

    SteveC

    29 Jul 12 at 7:58 pm

  22. Jumpncar – what do you do that you manage to emit 25000 tonnes of CO2 a year?

    Chris

    29 Jul 12 at 8:30 pm

  23. Oooh! Tag team!

    blogstrop

    29 Jul 12 at 8:41 pm

  24. We’ll all be paying, Chris. Try to remember that.

    blogstrop

    29 Jul 12 at 8:43 pm

  25. blogstrop – sure we all end up being passed the costs on from those companies that do pay for their CO2 emissions, but your ordinary person (unless they fart a lot) doesn’t have to pay for any of their own CO2 emissions. And a lot (most?) companies don’t have to pay for any of the CO2 emissions which they directly create either because they don’t exceed the threshold.

    Chris

    29 Jul 12 at 9:48 pm

  26. Any CO2 tax on the pretext of AGW is unjustified and therefore a blight regardless of how many or few of us it affects.

    Disproof of AGW, number 47.

    cohenite

    29 Jul 12 at 10:37 pm

  27. Rebuttal to disproof number 47

    SteveC

    29 Jul 12 at 10:58 pm

  28. You are a fucking idiot; Cook’s effort is in reponse to G&T’s FIRST paper; G&T reply to the 2nd Law “rebuttal” here.

    G&T say:

    In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”

    The 2ND Law argument against G&T’s first paper is complete bullshit.

    G&T’s SECOND paper which I linked to, and which you ignored, developes another approach to the issue of the direct radiative effect of CO2 as the mechanism of AGW; the point of the paper is to show that the assumptions of AGW are not consistent with the operation of the physical principles which determine climate, what G&T call the Barometric Formulas such as Navier-Stokes, Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, electromagnetic fields, ideal gas laws etc.

    By integrating the undisputed formuala for these various phenomena G&T “compute the temperature profiles of idealized atmospheres”. They do so to establish those physical principles are sufficient to explain the temperature profile of a gaseous atmosphere; G&T conclude:

    In case of the adiabatic atmosphere the decrease of the temperature with height is described by a linear function with slope −g/Cp, where Cp depends weakly on the molecular mass……Since the measurable thermodynamic quantities of a voluminous medium, in particular the specific heat and the thermodynamic transport coefficients, naturally include the contribution from radiative interactions, we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect.

    CO2 is trace gas.

    Say something sensible, which doesn’t include linking to the usual idiot pro-AGW sites, or shut up.

    cohenite

    29 Jul 12 at 11:20 pm

Leave a Reply