The promise was unambiguous, and made four times before the last election:
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
Such a fundamental betrayal of trust – such a cheat – should be condemned by anyone who values democracy. At the very least, the public fury at this betrayal should be understood as legitimate, natural and utterly predictable.
But to a warmist such as the Sydney Morning Herald’s Lenore Taylor, the cause is so great that excuses must be found for even the most outrageous and dangerous deceptions – even if those excuses are so feeble that they seem to die on her lips:
By dint of endless repetition, the antithesis of truth has become incorporated into the Prime Minister’s very name.
The unspun truth is, as always, more complicated. Yes, Gillard promised before the last election that there would be no carbon tax, but in the retelling, that is widely misconceived to have been a promise not to have a carbon price at all.
Really? No, the fury as I see it is almost entirely over the tax. Red herring.
In fact, if you cut through Labor’s spin at the last election – which admittedly requires secateurs and a mattock – ….
Did Lenore or likeminded others “cut through Labor’s spin” at the time – or swallow and excuse it?
… it was promising to have a carbon price, but it was a floating price, not a tax.
Exactly. But we now have a tax for three years, followed by a fixed floor price that will still be double the present price of carbon permits overseas. Hence the fury – not just at the betrayal but the economic vandalism.
I like a proposal from a decade ago. You pick a fixed point in time. Measure the global temperature and the global CO2 presence. You pick a price per ton of CO2 versus the temperature. If CO2 goes up and temperture goes up you pay more per ton. If CO2 goes up and temperature goes down, price goes down. Today price would be negative due to the significant rise of CO2 accompanied by a definite drop in temperature. works for me
•Not bad. Carbon fees reflect the true cost of carbon, which was estimated at an additional $.18/kwh. The carbon fee, by the way, would be returned to the taxpayer as a lowering of taxes. It would stimulate investment in clean energy. This is the current proposal in Congress. HR 3242.
•What drop in temperature? This decade was the hottest. Price goes up.
Estimated by whom?
Taxes are never lowered.
Stimulate investment in clean energy? It is already grossly overstimulated.
A fee by any other name is still a TAX.
jfreed27, your argument is feeble.
What does “true cost of carbon” mean? After all, coal is carbon and that is already being taxed to within inches of it’s life so why another tax, oops, fee?
Why would taxing coal again encourage investment in clean energy?
Define “clean energy”?
And don’t say ‘solar’ or ‘wind’ because if you stood outside in the sun all day I warrant you would not be able to power your house at the end of the day.
Let’s not forget that those solar panels and wind turbines have to be built out of something and the manufacturing process would not be possible without so-called carbon: coal and oil.
You obviously forget one other vital component of a so called ‘green’ tax: you get to pay more for everything. Yes, everything. That’s why it’s called a tax.
Are you really so rich that you are happy to support another Solynda? Or the dozens of other failed tax-payer subsidized behemoths extolling the ‘green’ virtue?