Kevin Rudd in classic pre-election ploy over carbon tax

Rudd to move to emissions scheme

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can see clearly now that he wants to fast track an emissions trading scheme in place of the carbon tax Source: Getty Images

KEVIN Rudd is NOT ditching the carbon tax. He isn’t even cutting it. Your power prices won’t fall by a single cent on his announcement.

All he is doing is engaging in a classic pre-election ploy. At best, you could say, he was promising that “there’d be a lower carbon tax under a government I lead”.

The critical point is that it’s not even the classic situation that voters have to take on trust, that after the election, he doesn’t find out, were he to win, that, unfortunately he then just had to break that promise.

Like so many, including his immediate predecessor, before him.

No, that would just be ‘normal politics’.

But in this case, he simply doesn’t have the power to guarantee what the carbon tax price would be. Because what Rudd’s doing, is promising to leave it to be set by Europe and/or financial speculators.

You don’t have to be a political genius to understand that Europe will set its price, or try to set its price, in what it sees as the best interests of Europe. It won’t give two hoots for Australia or Australian business and consumer electricity users.

Similarly, you don’t have to be a financial genius to appreciate that speculators will want to, and will be trying to, sell any carbon dioxide emission permits they have, for the highest possible price. Again,

they won’t be aiming to look after Aussie consumers.

At the moment that European price might be $6 a tonne of CO2 emitted. That’s barely a quarter of the $24 price under the Gillard-Milne (Greens leader, Christine Milne) carbon tax from the start of this month.

Under Rudd’s promise, that price and so the price of the electricity you buy, remains locked-in until July next year. Indeed, it is the only thing that’s certain under his election promise.

We have to wait until July next year, before his promise to end the fixed (and fixed to rise) price, kicks in. It is just ludicrous to assume that the European price will still be $6 then. It could be. Equally it could be $12. Indeed, it could be $20.

That’s another critical point in all this. The climate change soul-mates in Europe of our prime minister, desperately want their price to be much higher than it currrently is.

They do so, for the same reason that our prime minister in his first incarnation set about committing to all this. They – and Rudd Mark One – wanted to make electricity not just more expensive, but very significantly more expensive.

Something, that just as precisely, Rudd in his second incarnation, now says is just awful.

Critically, says before the election. That he wants to bring relief to business and consumer electricity users.

The whole ‘point’ of this carbon tax/ETS (emissions trading scheme) IS to hurt everyone with higher electricity prices.

So both users, business and consumers, will use less electricity; and that power companies will switch to non-coal – much more costly, and essentially useless – forms of so-called ‘alternative’ energy.

This is the fundamental internal dishonesty of what Rudd is trying to con voters into believing. That they can have cheaper power and still save the planet.

If climate change is still “the greatest moral challenge of our time,” the person who said that – Rudd Mark One – has to want a higher price on CO2 emissions.

Not just higher than Europe’s current $6, but higher than our existing $24. And substantially higher. As Treasury’s own modelling forecast – at least $38, and climbing continually higher.

The flipside of all this, is that if the price did stay at $6, or similarly, low levels, it would render the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government’s climate change policy even more totally pointless.

Because a global price sustained at those levels would tell us that the world was not getting serious about reducing CO2 emissions.

Not that we really need to be told that anyway. You just have to look at the reality of China’s emissions, where it increases its emissions every year by more than our entire emissions.

In short, if Rudd’s change does deliver lower power prices on any sort of sustained basis, the whole entire edifice of the very expensive climate change policy will be exposed as utterly pointless.

But for the policy to have any point, to be ‘saving the planet’, the low prices will have to be very quickly reversed.

With the price we end up paying under Rudd Mark Two’s new policy, not only unknown and unpredictable, but totally out of our control.

There’s a critically important further point, which builds on this to expose the dangerous path Rudd has now taken by placing control of our carbon policy in the hands of Europe.

As the opposition’s Malcolm Turnbull pointed out on the Fin Review‘s program on the Nine Network on Sunday, the term ‘carbon tax’ is used in two ways.

One, as an explicit tax levied by the state, just like the excise tax, say, on cigarettes. The second, is as a generic term, ‘taxing the use of carbon,’ by in some way putting a price on the emission of CO2.

Either way – and this is me speaking, although there was just the glimmer of a suggestion that Turnbull might be starting to see the light – the exercise is sheer and utter insanity and stupidity.

But at least, with a (real) carbon tax – as the existing Gillard one was, in its pre-ETS form – we are paying the money for these permits to ourselves. As in, to the government.

In this form, the carbon tax is like a second GST. At best, no worse than any other indirect tax, whether the GST or an excise.

But with the ETS, open to global markets, we will be paying some – most? all? – the money to foreigners, to buy their ‘permits.’ Whether to legit (sic) ones in Europe or to the ubiquitous Nigerians.

This money, which even Treasury estimates will – and indeed, should – run into billions of dollars a year, will be money paid to buy . . . absolutely nothing.

It buys nothing but a bit of paper, that says in effect: you are given permission to keep your power station open.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott put it precisely right yesterday: it’s a payment for the “non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”

But payment of very real dollars out of the pockets of all Australians.

Posted on July 16, 2013, in ConspiracyOz Posts. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on Real News Australia and commented:
    The Carbon is a scam. The ETS is the scam on paper. Rudd is rubber stamping it to lock us into the scam.

    The best part of this piece is the ending….

    “This money, which even Treasury estimates will – and indeed, should – run into billions of dollars a year, will be money paid to buy . . . absolutely nothing.

    It buys nothing but a bit of paper, that says in effect: you are given permission to keep your power station open.

    Opposition leader Tony Abbott put it precisely right yesterday: it’s a payment for the “non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”

    But payment of very real dollars out of the pockets of all Australians.”

    I’m no fan of Abbott but he’s dead on in that statement.


  2. From “ON TARGET” 25 Jan. 2013

    by Betty Luks
    The clear message is in the headlines. This debt-laden nation and its debt-laden people are to be bankrupted and sold off by the Usurers’ agents – the banks. The banks in turn operate according to laws drafted by politicians that favour them – as is the case all round the world.
    Examples of this Usury-ridden, debt-laden land
    • “Rural debt rises across agri-sectors” and; “NQ shock as receiver moves in” Queensland Country Life, 1 December 2011;
    • “Shires to sell assets” – Weekly Times, 9 January, 2013.
    • “294 Fewer Farmers Every Month” The River News, Waikerie 19 December 2012
    • ‘Cow of a Time as Debt Weights Down Cattlemen” and “Local Food Industry Needs China Funds to Feed World” Stock Journal 10 January 2013.
    Tell me fellow Australian, have you not had enough yet? Are you going to just give in without a whimper? Or are you going to insist your local state and federal politician take up the matters that are of concern to you and your fellow Australian AND DEAL WITH THEM?
    I repeat a portion of G.K. Chesterton’s quote taken from “Utopia of Usurers”
    “Every religion, apart from open devil worship, must appeal to a virtue or the pretence of a virtue. But a virtue, generally speaking, does some good to everybody. It is therefore necessary to distinguish among the people it was meant to benefit, those whom it does benefit. Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else. It was meant to benefit the rich; and meant to benefit nobody else….”
    Chesterton was of course referring to the Church’s traditional teaching on the true purpose of a money system and the evils of Usury. Historically Religion/Capitalism brought about great changes in the people’s thinking and understanding on this fundamental matter. Download from League’s website – “The Enemy Within the Empire” by Eric D. Butler
    The Heritage Bookshop Services and Veritas online carry the following
    “Utopia of Usurers” by G.K. Chesterton, $16.00 + postage : “The Just Tax” by Geoffrey Dobbs. $4.00 + postage.
    And “O’Malley MHR” by Larry Noye. In a brisk conversational style Larry Noye describes the experiences of King O’Malley on his arrival in Australia around 1888. He immediately made an impression with his colourful oratory. He served three years in the South Australian Parliament, and 16 years in the fledgling Federal Parliament.
    As Minister for Home Affairs he promoted the trans-continental railway and saw to it that it was constructed without incurring a debt burden requiring years of payments. The selection of the site of the ACT was another of his responsibilities. Having been trained in banking in America, O’Malley campaigned tirelessly for a “people’s bank” in Australia. This eventually came about in 1911. O’Malley lived until 1953 – commenting on social and political issues up to his death. This book gives an insight into Australian history and life over an eventful 65 years. Price: $35.00 + postage.

    “The Story of the Commonwealth Bank” by D.J. Amos:
    Leading politicians still scoff at the idea that low-interest creation of money is not only possible, but is part of the answer to Australia’s present woes. It is important to re-learn how Australia made enormous progress when ‘the peoples’ bank’ (the original Commonwealth Bank) controlled the creation of Australia’s credit.
    The original Commonwealth Bank was able to fund the cost of the First World War without debt to the nation and re-settle returned soldiers on land grants at extremely low rates of interest. Public works, such as the East-West Railway, were funded free of debt. The insignificant 0.625% interest charged was sufficient for the bank to make a profit! This book is immensely important for Australians to help with their understanding of the money system. (It will be an introduction to the study of C.H. Douglas’ answer to the usurious international debt-finance.) The hard copy is available – $5.00 + postage. Or download: “The Story of the Commonwealth Bank”

    There is ample material on the League’s website – plus a good selection of educational material available from our Book Services. Start with “The Story of the Commonwealth Bank” and digest the fact that politicians of all persuasions have betrayed their own people for many a year.

    Tell me gentle reader, do you grasp the truth that money is merely a means to an end and NOT an end in itself? Do you really think blips on a computer (bank’s ‘money’ transactions) are of more value than the families of this nation and the real wealth of this land?


    • Hey Kevin.
      Thought I’d find you here. My comment is this to you all. Heard it all before. Read it all before. Again we are waiting on the impossible. Political change by those in the know.
      Do we really enjoy banging our heads against a brick wall. They are not game enough to go against their puppet masters. So why do we keep trying.
      Here’s an idea. Start our own party. For Australia and its people. Show the sheeple where we can be if we only change a few things.
      We know the problems, so therefor the answers to. Who’s willing to continue this discussion. Are you in Kevin. What about you generalmaddox.
      If you guys come up with another idea that will work as well as this, I’m all ears. Catchya’s.


  3. Greeny, I think you have a good point, even though it’s a bit painful to acknowledge. Even though we liberty-minded folk like to participate in forums etc, I’d hazard a guess that BECAUSE we are libertarians to various degrees, we may tend to subconsciously avoid forming groups.

    That’s just my humble opinion. But amongst our community there’s a general distrust of political parties, which means attempts to form them from our own members my be viewed with suspicion. Maybe the powers-that-shouldn’t-be know this and feel like that can do whatever they wish because we won’t band together and kick them out!

    However, I do think websites (and podcasts) like this one of Mick’s, and General’s site as well, are invaluable from an Aussie context. Alex Jones covers US stuff well, but frankly doesn’t have much of a clue when it comes to addressing the Aussie stories that occasionally come up on his show. James Corbett is a good operator, I think, and gets a great message out.

    There are small victories going on at different levels, and as they increase in frequency they’ll attract more vitriol from the mainstream media and politics. Jason Woodforth and Ann Bressington are good examples here, as is the anti-fluroridation movement. We are fighting an uphill battle though, and the more successful we get the more flak we’ll cop.

    One solution is for loads of independents to run in upper house elections. Not the Oakeshott/ Windsor types, but more like Ann Bressington or Nick Xenophon, one of the very few federal politicians anywhere I have much respect for. The lower house is rigged to keep the LibLabs in power, but the upper houses of state and federal parliaments afford more latitude for indies and minor parties to get in and make things difficult for the crooks.



    • Hey mawashi10, thanks for the response. Nothing has changed however. All said sites are great. Love Alex Jones (although have heard he could be batting for other side- how would I know) also intellihub. Great if those you talk about can get in. This may sound weird but I agree with the loads of independents all vying for parliament but ( here’s the weird bit ) would really help if part of the same party ? So all know what each other talking about. Looks better to the sheeple when they ask questions to us. Anti fluoridation is great but add all other criminal activity is better. Nicely rounds things off doesn’t it.


  4. At its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International plainly declared:
    The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government…. Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.
    The SI has never wavered from that goal, though it has softened its rhetoric, adopting the mushier, less threatening term “global governance” to replace its earlier appeals to “world government.” This is important to keep in mind, since current and former Prime Ministers and Presidents who are members of the SI comprise a large and influential contingent of world leaders who figure prominently at global and regional summits. Currently, the Socialist International boasts 170 political parties and organizations worldwide, including many that are currently in power running national governments.
    Prominent SI member parties include:
    • Britain’s Labour Party (Gordon Brown, Prime Minister),
    • Australia’s Labour Party (Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister),
    • South Africa’s African National Congress (Jacob Zuma, President),
    • Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (Jose Zapatero, President),
    • Nicaragua’s Sandinista Liberation Front (Daniel Ortega, President),
    • Namibia’s South West Africa People’s Organization (Hifikepunye Lucas Pohamba, President),
    • Chile’s Socialist Party (Michelle Bachelet, President), and
    • Egypt’s National Democratic Party (Hosni Mubarak, President).
    These and other SI member parties and their leaders have been fairly open in their calls for “global governance” to address what they claim are “global crises” that cannot be addressed (they say) in the current system of sovereign nation states. As The New American has reported, Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd have been especially outspoken, with hysterical pronouncements on the supposed need for UN governance to stave off supposed catastrophic global warming. In a speech this past November, Prime Minister Rudd denounced global-warming skeptics — including respected scientists and politicians — as evil “climate-change deniers,” who are “dangerous” and are “holding the world to ransom.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: