Here’s a simple rule for determining if something is a tax or not.

- Will the thing increase the income of the government?

That’s it. Will cap and trade (aptly derided as ‘cap and tax’) fill the government coffers? Yes, it will. It’s a tax. I am stunned that you are trying to deny that, especially since the AGW myth is already 1 year into it’s 5 year death-cycle.

I suspect that when all is said and done (~4 years from now), you will not feel the slightest need to apologize for the harm you’ve done by supporting the AGW scam. Not even a twinge of remorse. You’ll feel justified, because even though you didn’t understand the science enough to see through the scam… damnit, you cared.

Of course, those evil heartless conservatives were the ones that were right… but you’re the one who cared for the imaginary problems of the Earth more. Kudos .

Side note: Once global warming is admitted to being the scam that it is by the left (4 years from now), what is the next ‘disaster’ awaiting us that can be blamed on mankind – the only type of disaster progressives are interested in? My guess is “we’re running out of soil, and it’s going to cause X billion deaths every week!” That one will take another decade to debunk. I know it’s a silly armageddon scenario, but do you have one that’s more likely to be embraced by the progressives?

All the best for Christmas and the New Year.

I haven’t been much around commenting, but my hand is improving and almost healed now.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Peter

TA’s use of the term “great big tax” is, of course, a great big stunt.

I think that you have to be very careful with comments such as the $1.30 per week for food. Carbon reduction will cost, it has to if we are going to reduce carbon emissions. To pretend otherwise will create real problems a little later as the costs flow through.

So far we have had one official pricing inquiry, that on electricity in NSW, and that points to significant cost increases. And that is what I would expect.

If you look at the ETS, every dollar the government gathers from sale of permits has either to be absorbed by business or paid for by final consumers through price increases.

Specifically on food, food prices have risen in recent times and will rise further as the ETS kicks in. Like the NSW electricity case, those rises will be due in part to the projected effects of the ETS, in part to other variables.

I haven’t modelled the effects on food prices, but the $1.30 a week strikes me as astonishingly low given that farm input costs will rise, distribution costs will rise, as will final sale costs.

None of this should be construed as opposition to action on climate change. I just think that we need to recognise, to be hard headed about, the fact that such a fundamental change in the way things are done will cost.

…Opposition leader Tony Abbott is busy reminding people of the cost of an emissions trading system and promising a yet-to-be seen policy that won’t cost anything.

It has left the Government a bit flummoxed by the seemingly new concern about price. It thought it had this part nailed when it promised 100per cent compensation – and then some – for low- and middle-income households.

The compensation will come in the form of rebates, so people still feel the impact of the rises (and supposedly change their behaviour) but don’t lose out overall.

The Government never suggested the scheme would be cost-free…

Selling action on climate change is not as hard as it seems.

Remember when the ABC came up with the “eight cents a day” slogan? It seemed like a pretty good deal.

Is reducing the risk of severe bushfires and limiting the damage to the Great Barrier Reef worth $1.30 a week? That’s what Treasury puts the average weekly rise in food prices under the scheme.

That is about 19 cents a day andmost people won’t even haveto pay it thanks to the compensation scheme.

Untill Tuesday night Ian Plimer was the respectable face of climate scepticism in Australia. Plimer looks the part of the distinguished professor, and as a geologist gives the impression of understanding the long run forces affecting the earth’s climate, as opposed to the ephemera that excite the global warming alarmists. On top of that, he was known as as an eloquent debunker of creationism, which earned him credibility as a rational mind as well as immunity from accusations of rightwing ratbaggery. A non-scientist, concerned citizen, while appreciating the significance of the IPCC findings, could still hold some doubts about global warming as long as someone like Plimer disputed the consensus position.

But on Lateline it all came crashing down. The eminent Plimer looked like a rat in a trap…

But this fairly disingenous (IMO) scare campaign is where the Liberals are taking a leaf out of the ALP’s GST playbook (I hope with less success). In both cases (and in both cases mainly because the government was forced to negotiate with another party) the extra money the government got was in effect returned for the most part especially to the people most seriously affected and least able to afford the change uncompensated. So both opposition parties in effect appeal to fears that ignorant people have that they will bear the brunt of the extra costs. Some sections will bear more than others but as with the GST the government is saying the measure will be (broadly) revenue neutral so this isn’t more tax it’s actually just much better directed tax (on net Carbon Dioxide emissions and other net Kyoto ‘problem’ gas ‘Carbon Dioxide equivalent’ emissions). But as with the GST also with the ETS it seems to be relatively easy to scare people about if the opposition simply pretends that it is or will be extra tax rather than better tax. People just tend to feel threatened by any change if other people spend enough time and vested interest money trying to scare them about it for their own nefarious purposes.

People forget in this that those who can’t really afford any higher costs will be well compensated and those who can’t be compensated as well (because the government has to compensate emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries as well as the poor and pay for mitigation and further research) would tend to be able to afford to share some of the cost (and would probably favour the liberals in many cases anyway). They also forget (incredibly) that the much greater cost will be the cost among other things of the virtually unimaginable economic devastation and the breakdown of civilisation that is more and more likely to come about sooner and sooner the longer those who really can afford to aren’t prepared to undergo this relatively painless change now.

I hope that makes sense and isn’t too long-winded. If I am correct you would know all that so thanks for allowing me to have a frustrated rant about it.

Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation which he says promotes self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.

He has been stunned at the treatment he’s received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and he also believes he’s not alone.

“I’ve been treated extremely poorly,” he told AAP on Thursday.

“There needs to be a Senate inquiry.

“The way the publication policy and the charter are being interpreted will encourage self-censorship.

“It’s obviously happened before at the CSIRO – and there’s issues currently.”

Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report – The Brave New World of Carbon Trading – and restricting its publication.

The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters.

Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.

The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

Thanks for mentioning it though: this is his website.

I will add a little above on Pearman.

Even Kevin Rudd seemed haunted by the manifestations, if a little confused.

“Took the boys to the movies last night to see Zombieland,” he Twittered the next day (I am not joking about this, by the way).

“Zombieland gives me a whole new perspective on what to watch out for in politics. Boys loved it. I’m not sure.”