Demonising Carbon

Published at the request of Viv Forbes:

“Demonising Carbon – a Death Wish?”

 
A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
9 March 2009
 
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on all parties in the looming state election to make a clear statement on their policies regarding Emissions Trading and Carbon Taxes.
 
The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that politicians in a state so overwhelmingly dependent on carbon energy, carbon food and taxes on carbon products can no longer hide behind hypothetical anti-carbon scare stories based on dubious climate forecasts for 100 years ahead.
 
 “We have a real present emergency with growing fear among investors and shareholders in anything associated with mining, power generation, tourism and farming – the backbone industries of Queensland.”
 
“Much of this fear is generated by an insane campaign to demonise carbon dioxide, the natural atmospheric gas on which all life depends.”
 
“There is growing scientific recognition that carbon dioxide does not control climate – rather the other way around – temperatures rise because of solar influences and those rising temperatures expel carbon dioxide from that great carbon storehouse – the oceans”.
 
“There is also growing recognition that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are very low and the gradual increases occurring at present pose no threat to any life on earth. The reverse is true – all life will benefit from more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the benefits will be increased by the slight warming experienced over the last one hundred years.
 
“We are supposed to panic over carbon dioxide levels of a miniscule 380 parts per million.
 
“Most life, plants and animals, probably developed with CO2 levels of about 1500 ppm – 400% above current levels. This fact is well understood by greenhouse operators who burn gas to increase CO2 levels to at least 1,000 ppm, 260% above current atmospheric levels.
 
“Inside populated buildings, CO2 levels of 3,000 ppm (770% above current levels) have been measured in homes, schools and offices with no ill effects. Even most Health and Safety people consider 5,000 ppm (1,300% above current levels) to be safe. Medical gas given to people with respiratory problems typically contains 50,000 ppm CO2 (13,000% above current levels) and our lung sacs retain about 65,000 ppm (16,800 % above current levels). Not until CO2 levels get to 100,000 ppm (260 times current levels) is there any concern about human health.
 
“All plant life will also benefit from increased carbon dioxide, and much of the extra food produced by the green revolution is the result of the warmer and more carbon-rich atmosphere.
 
“It seems that those who are trying to demonise carbon dioxide have a death wish for Queensland society. To achieve significant cuts in carbon emissions from man’s activities would requires massive destruction of our energy, farming, smelting, cement, transport and tourism industries, together with the jobs and prosperity of the populations that depend on them.
 
“The war against carbon is a war against coal, cattle, concrete, cars, electricity and breathing – who thinks Queensland can survive without these?
 
“It is time for the people of Queensland to be told which parties are supporting or condoning this reckless policy.”
 
————————————————————————————————-
 
 For more information on the importance of carbon dioxide to human health see:
http://carbon-sense.com/
 
————————————————————————————————————————–
 
John Coleman, an experienced meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel has the last word:
“Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history”.
Source:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
 
————————————————————————————————-
 
Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23  Rosewood        Qld      4340
0754 640 533
info@carbon-sense.com                                                          www.carbon-sense.com.
 
 
The Carbon Sense Coalition was formed in Queensland by Australians concerned at the baseless demonisation of carbon dioxide by an unholy alliance of green extremists, vested interests and political and media opportunists. Support for “Carbon Sense” is growing rapidly. The Coalition aims to expose the lack of scientific support for the anti-carbon campaign, and the real and present threat to our industries and jobs if any of the current proposals for Emissions Trading Taxes or Carbon Taxes are enacted.
 

Coalition joins the climate change fight – but without an ETS?

The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, is quoted by The Australian as giving a speech which attacks the Australian Government’s malcolm-turnbullunbalanced focus on an emissions trading scheme as a means of addressing man’s influence on the climate. Instead Mr Turnbull states that a Coalition Government would focus on replacing old technology with new.

“An ETS is not an end to itself,” Mr Turnbull will argue. “It’s only part of the solution – one tool in the climate policy tool box and, in fact, no solution at all without new energy sources and new low-emissions technology.”

“Our Green Carbon Initiative will ensure Australia is able to achieve greater reductions in carbon dioxide than those proposed by Mr Rudd, at relatively low cost and with enormous additional benefits to our own country’s environment.”

Hooray! At least part of the message is getting through to the politicians. Also, thank you to readers who have sent copies of my posts to politicians. Suddenly there is a risk-management focus on the climate change debate….

But Mr Turnbull will assert that action on climate change is not a matter of belief or non-belief in the science but a wise exercise in risk-management.

Clever political move Mr Turnbull. Most Australians ARE concerned with the environment. With our abundance of open space, Australians are probably more environmentally aware than other people.

However, Australians are not convinced that another socialist experiment is in anyone’s best interests. The US sub-prime mortgage market was one such experiment, and that triggered the current global economic crisis.

I posted on a risk management view of an ETS in Australia headed for economic strife, but still wants a an Emissions Trading Scheme?

Personally, I support moves to actually protect our environment and have lower human impact on the world we live in – regardless of whether man-made CO2 is causing global warming. (And I still have stuff to readnsay on that topic too!)

Australia headed for economic strife, but still wants an emissions trading scheme?

The Australian economy has held up pretty well against the storm of the global financial crisis, but it appears the financial crisis is starting to bite here too. China’s economy is slowing, which will reduce our exports of resources. It is the resources boom which has insulated Australia from the bulk of the global economic storm so far.

I published this graph in a previous post, How an ETS would create economic chaos to indicate Australia’s recent dependence upon resource mining.

 australian-exports1

Any commercial enterprise with this type of graph of its product mix would have identified this as a commercial risk and acted to mitigate the risk of the main product line going sour for some reason. These actions might include investing in value adding from that product, increasing sales in other existing product lines, not locking in investment in this product line too far in the future, while ensuring that product can be supplied for as long as there is demand for it ……..

Another risk mitigation strategy would be to ensure that the business does not place critical reliance on the cash flow from this one major product. Australia has not made the most of any of these risk mitigating opportunities. Therefore as the demand for our resources slows, we are going to feel a bit of a pinch.

Fortunately this slow down shouldn’t last too long. The world’s financial industry is starting to settle in corrective and remedial action. This will take time to come around, but it will. The upturn will be gradual though, as finance and credit will become available again a bit at a time, not in one wave of a magic wand. In the meantime industry needs to slow activity until the financial markets get back onto firmer ground.

Imagine though if the downturn in industry was imposed for ten years? That is what Australia is facing with the cap, tax and (one day) trade Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is our boom and bread and butter industries – mining and agriculture – that will feel the main impacts. Industry will take time to implement the cleaner technologies, once they become technically realistic and cost effective.

Industry invests less in R&D and innovation in a downturn because most efforts and money are spent on ensuring survival. No sense investing heavily in next generation technology if the risk you won’t be around next year is getting uncomfortable.

Also, government invests less in innovation when tax revenue falls. Social security, health, education, policing and security are basic services expected of a government in a developed country. It is the other areas in which there is more flexibility in spending, and that is where the cuts will be made.

Hopefully the policy makers are reviewing their strategy regarding CPRS already.

 

What would you do if you were part of the government policy making team? What risk mitigation strategies and policy changes would you be taking now?

How an ETS would create economic chaos

The news is full of reports of demand for oil dropping and predictions that it will continue to fall during 2009 due to factory closedthe economic crisis, such as in Reuters 16 January 2009. The same economic factors are in play now as would be under a global emissions trading scheme, just the influence would be in a different direction. Do we want an emissions trading scheme which is the trigger for economic calamity?

The current global financial crisis is spreading into an economic crisis which is slowing industrial demand for a number of inputs, including energy which includes oil. Oil prices are dropping dramatically due to decreased demand for oil. The causal relationship in the current economy looks like this:

access to finance/ credit shrinks -> industrial productivity drops -> consumption drops -> price of oil to the producer drops

Imagine a different trigger event to the finance/ credit crisis, such as an emissions trading scheme which taxes consumption of fossil fuels heavily. The causal relationship then would look like this:

massive tax on fossil fuel consumption -> cost of production increases -> demand for products drops -> industrial activity drops -> demand for fossil fuels drops -> price to the producer drops

In this scenario, everyone loses, including government revenue:

  • industrial production drops
  • company tax paid to the government drops
  • unemployment increases
  • taxes paid on wages drop
  • standard of living in the developed world drops
  • carbon emissions drop a little, but not much, because poor people use carbon based fuels for heat and cooking, they can’t afford swanky solar panels on their roof (if they have a roof), they collect wood and burn it
  • clean technology innovation slows because industry can’t afford R&D or upgrades when the economy slows
  • global climate keeps on doing what it was doing anyway because the solar cycle is not influenced by economics

What a great scenario. In the meantime, unemployment increases and gross domestic product decreases. A fall in GDP in two successive quarters is called a recession. A fall in GDP of more than 10% is called a depression. What some countries are experiencing currently is bordering on recession, or is recession.

An enforced emissions trading scheme could trigger a full blown depression – a la 1930’s style. The objective of reducing carbon emissions would be achieved only by default – due to a decline in economic activity

Senator Joyce calls environmentalists Nazis

Senator Barnaby Joyce

 

Australia’s Senator Barnaby Joyce is making his stance on an emissions trading scheme very clear. AAP today quote the Senator calling global warming theory “eco-totalitarianism” and compares the shunning and hushing of  anyone refuting an emissions trading scheme to the totalitarianism of the Nazi era. The following is an extract from the item on heraldsun.com.au:

 

Environmentalism is like Nazism – Joyce

Article from: AAP January 14, 2009 08:23am

NATIONALS firebrand Barnaby Joyce has launched a fresh attack on emissions trading, drawing parallels between environmentalists and Nazis.

Senator Joyce warned of the rise of “eco-totalitarianism” and said he would not be “goosestepping” along with them.

The Federal Government plans to start emissions trading in 2010 to reduce carbon pollution and take up the fight against climate change.

“The idea that this scheme can go forward and no one’s allowed to question because there’s a new form of eco-totalitarianism that demands blind obedience, I think that is wrong,” the Nationals Senate leader said on ABC radio today.

“One has to fall into lockstep, goosestep and parade around the office ranting and raving that we are all as one?”

He has also written to farmers expressing his views. Refer my post Senator Barnaby Joyce on Climate Change and ETS. I am no fan of the concept either as you may have gathered from Emissions Trading Scheme Does not Make Ecocnomic Sense.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but I am against an emissions trading scheme. I am also against anyone trying to tell me what I should think. So I get where he is coming from.

 Most blogs I have read have a very genteel code of behaviour. If you don’t agree, you say so – politely. In the “in your face” world of politics, it is another matter. Behaviour in Parliament in Western societies would be considered obscenely rude in some other countries.

Also, some global warming alarmists are so absorbed by their beliefs that they will attack anyone who dares to differ. You have to sympathise with them a little – they really believe Al Gore et al and that the world will become inhabitable and life as we know it will cease because of CO2 emissions. If you think your life is threatened you do tend to get a bit tense.

In summary – global warming alarmists, please keep your insults and belittlements to yourself. No one likes being told what to think or that they are too stupid to understand. Open, frank but polite debate is needed with people from both sides of the argument respecting the other’s right to an opinion – even if they are wrong!

Emissions Trading Scheme Does Not Make Economic Sense

CPRS and You Booklet
CPRS and You Booklet

The Australian Treasury prepared a paper called Australia’s Low Pollution Future – The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation which was launched by the Treasurer on 30 October 2008.

This paper presents Treasury’s view that a switch to active measures to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 5%-15% from 2000 levels will have a net cost to Australians of only about 5% GDP in real terms. This aligns with IPCC’s economic forecasts which show that developed countries like Australia will mitigate the costs of adapting to reduced CO2 emissions by implementing an emissions trading scheme.

However there is one fundamental difference in the two calculations. Australian Treasury states the 5% reduction in GDP will commence almost from day 1 and continue past the date proposed for Australia to enter the international emissions trading market in the year 2020. IPCC’s economic forecasts show much greater reductions in GDP without engagement in the international emissions trading scheme and mitigation to a few percent if developed countries join in the international emissions trading scheme from the UN’s target date for implementation of 2010 – ten years before Australian Treasury proposes Australia join the international market.

One obvious problem with IPCC’s forecasts is that for the effect on GDP for developed counties to be mitigated by an emissions trading scheme, the developed countries must be getting a cash inflow from somewhere as a result of the trading scheme. From where? The developing countries? Do they think China and India are going to pay other countries for the right to continue to burn fossil fuels?

The problem with the Australian Treasury forecast is that although they state there will be a negative effect on the production of some industries, including coal, alumina and cattle, this will be compensated for by Australia developing greenhouse gas friendly industries. And what might these be? Australian Treasury shows only one industry with significant increasing contribution to GDP – forestry. As Treasury states that their forecast is based on “existing land area” this increase must be made up of a big jump in the value of carbon credits as well as the value of harvested timber. Will we be allowed to harvest the trees we grow?

Forestry is not a significant employer. Once the trees are established there is little activity in maintaining them. Therefore there will be very little economic input into the Australian economy from this industry. I suspect the flow on effects of changed employment levels and the resulting change in mix of economic multiplier effects have not been fully factored into the Australian Treasury forecasts.

Australia’s highest export earners are the resources sector. Australia’s economy is very heavily dependent upon primary industry – mining and agriculture. Take away coal, alumina and cattle and we have very little productive sector left!

Australian Exports
To sell an emissions trading scheme as morally correct and thus reduce the level of backlash for this new tax, the Australian Government has spun up a nice fuzzy name – Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Lessons From History on Climate Change

Published with the permission of Viv Forbes:

“Lessons from History on Climate Change”.
A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
3 January 2009
For Immediate Release.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today congratulated Senator Barnaby Joyce, Senator Ron Boswell, Senator Cory Bernardi and Dr Dennis Jensen MP for their principled stand against the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Releasing a new paper entitled “Climate Change in Perspective” the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that changing climate was a permanent feature of Earth’s history – man did not cause it and cannot change it.

“All over the world, politicians, scientists, taxpayers and shareholders are waking up to the fact that they have been conned by the global warming story. All we need to do is read a bit of climate history to get things into perspective and realize how lucky we are today.”

He commented: “Within just the last 20,000 years, vast ice sheets melted from the earth’s surface, seas rose about 130 m, temperatures rose well above present levels several times, and as the seas warmed, they expelled their dissolved carbon dioxide.”

“Then just 300 years ago, earth suffered from the bitter cold and famines caused by the Little Ice Age. Since about 1700 AD, warmth created by increasing solar activity has been driving back the deadly frosts, snow and ice. Carbon dioxide is naturally expelled from the warming oceans to the atmosphere – humans have very little to do with it all.”

“All of these events were caused by and controlled by natural processes, and all life on earth was forced to adapt or die.”

“Despite continual increases in man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the earth has not warmed since 1998. With unseasonal snow, bitter frosts, power failures and lost crops being reported every week, to send 10,000 pampered politicians and bureaucrats on a junket to Poland to discuss “Global warming” is surely a sick joke?

“A growing number of politicians are now bravely stating what a large and increasing number of scientists have been saying: “There is no global warming crisis, carbon dioxide is a benefit not a danger in the atmosphere, and the whole Emissions Trading industry is shaping up to be a bigger financial disaster than the sub-prime mess.”

To read the full report from The Carbon Sense Coalition on “Climate Change in Perspective” see:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/

For a link to the additional 650 scientists who signed their dissent over Man-Made Global Warming claims and continue to debunk the so-called “Consensus” in 2008 see:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=53242194&CFTOKEN=70206467

To read comments by Senator Joyce see:
http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/12/17/barnaby-joyce-the-innate-problems-with-labors-emissions-trading-scheme/

Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340
0754 640 533

info@carbon-sense.com www.carbon-sense.com.

Senator Barnaby Joyce on Climate Change and ETS

The following is an address to the readers of Agmates website from the Leader of the Nationals in the Australian Senate, Barnaby Joyce –

Leader of the Nationals in the Senate Barnaby Joyce writes to the Agmates community –
*****
I’m going to be serious and quite frank with you here as the issues I am about to raise will be contentious not only amongst coalition MP’s but also my own party.
Every age comes up with a witch to burn, a sect that apparently if it is not succumbed will bring about the destruction of an empire, an issue that occupies the rigours of the day.
It is almost as if those in the position of power and their surrounding Illuminati with time to spare are terrified of the banality of daily existence and so search for an issue that demands blind obedience to conquer it.
The most dangerous place to be in these times of immense fervour is in the counter position that calls in to question the logic of the euphoria. Those who dare to question are held as heretics. There is a communal life fest in being part of the pack or staying silent.
It is hard for them to separate from the reality that the world is fairly constant and predictable and that things of the greater nature of the universe have remained beyond our control in the past and generally shall remain so into the future.
It was interesting to hear the recent discussion between Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, with Robyn Williams, on The Science Show on ABC Radio National, when he rightly stated that the world has many problems but global warming is not one of the biggest ones. As Dyson said:
“Sea level rise has been going on much longer, long before global warming, and it probably has very little to do with human activities. All we know for sure is that sea level has been rising steadily for about 10,000 years and we’ll have to do something about that.”
I don’t pretend for one moment to be a scientist but in my role in the Senate it is implicit in my job to be a sceptic , to question and to consider all sides and be open to the views of many rather than one view.
My current concern with the emissions trading scheme is that a religious fervour has built up around the altar of global warming. Those who serve at the altar have become ruthless in their denigration of alternate views. This fervour has now received its imprimatur by reason of a new tax, or should it be tithe to be paid to the Rudd Labor Government.
The similarity in this newest forte of socialism can be defined by the ultimate purpose of divesting the individual of their asset or income stream on the premise of an apparent greater moral good.
But who becomes the benefactors of this divestment? The administrators and the traders. Their pockets are lined with the property and income of others.
I don’t remember anybody paying rural Australia for the vegetation that was divested from their asset, rural land, during the tree-clearing legislation so we could meet our Kyoto target and unfortunately I don’t hear any chorus of questioning as to why in the future rural producers, after trying to feed the nation and others, will have to be dragged into an emissions trading scheme that could make many of them unviable.
Where is all this heading?
The National Party has been at the forefront of saying this is all getting beyond ridiculous and becoming dangerous. They are also being supported by unlikely allies such as the Australian Workers Union who see their own members, who have been part of the process of delivering wealth to our nation from their labours have had their industries now termed ‘dirty’ by the new environmental high priests. In this new Orwellian frenzy everyone is looking over their shoulder.
Australia is going down a path of an ETS without the co-operation of the major emitting countries. It says that it is morally right to do so. The Rudd Labor Government and others say that unilateral action is a moral imperative. I look forward to that same fervour of moralistic rectitude as they approach the Mugabe issue in Zimbabwe. He is certainly in the wrong and it is on this new platform of morals that we await our dear leader to launch an attack in a very worthwhile and immediate practice of ridding our planet of this tyrant, Mugabe. That is something that would be of an exceptional benefit.
The government is currently honey-coating the fact that it will be collecting a vast amount of money from the Australian people. The ETS will collect $11.5 billion in its first year, $12 billion in its second, it will force up the price of goods and services, it will encourage industries to move to where an ETS is not present.
Australia generates 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions and this ETS will reduce world levels by the smallest sliver, which self-evidently will have nil effect on global climate whether you believe in climate warming or not.
People will lose their job or their business because of the ETS. They will be the modern-day witches burning on the environmentalist fanatical pyre because their role in this new dynamic was unacceptable.
For regional Australia we look forward to the ridiculous prospect of 34 million possible hectares of forest to take the place of farming land, formerly the backbone of so many regional towns and generations of good, honest working Australians’ lives.
The history of human civilisations has the disturbing trait of devising ways to put themselves out of business, sometimes through no more than their own excesses and belief structures of their governing bureaucracies. The only protection against these excesses is the capacity of the general population to question, to doubt and to disagree.
I have no doubt that as a world we must become efficient with the utilisation of our resources. We must give the greatest number of people the greatest access to the highest standard of living, it is only fair.
Efficiency, more than emissions, must become the trading scheme that brings a cleaner, fairer future. Encourage efficiency and keep the government’s hands out of people’s pockets and off their assets and that will bring a greater propensity to a long-term broad-based better world for all of us.
END

Well said Senator.
Please pass on this news, and your support of the Senator’s comments, particularly to your Member of Parliament.

First ETS spin "gotcha"

I haven’t even finished reading the first news item I opened (Kids take the heat out of climate costs) on the Australian Government’s new emissions reduction target of 5% (from 2000 levels) and the first whopper bites me on the nose –

Some 60 per cent of middle income earners – 2.4 million households – would be compensated for all price rises. The extra money would come through a 2.5 per cent rise in welfare payments, including Family Tax benefits A and B, from July 2010.
This would include a 1.1 per cent indexation due in September but to be brought forward, and 1.4 per cent to cover cost increases.

In other words, over 40% of what the government claims they will be paying families to compensate for the costs of the scheme they would have been paying any way! This is called spin in polite political circles.

What would the figures look like if they showed only the actual true increase in welfare assistance as 1.4%?

The figures in the couriermail.com.au article compared to the true 1.4% extra payments:

(My comments and calculations at 1.4% are in red beside each quote.)

“How the emissions trading scheme will impact you, assuming you do not alter your energy consumption:

Single-person household – no children

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $324, government assistance is $390 – therefore $66 a year better off – really $106 worse off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $574, assistance from government is $290 – therefore $284 a year worse off – really $412 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $877, government assistance is nil – therefore $877 a year worse off – still $877 worse off

Sole parent with one dependent child under five-years-old

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost if living impact is $487, government assistance is $963 – therefore $476 a year better off – really $52 better off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $622, government assistance is $904 – therefore $282 a year better off – really $116 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $900, government assistance is $99 – therefore $801 a year worse off – really $845 worse off

Single income couple with two dependent children, one aged 6-12 and one aged 13-15

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $553, government assistance is $1189 – therefore $636 a year better off – really $113 better off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $701, government assistance is $1044 – therefore $343 a year better off – really $116 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $925, government assistance is $897 – therefore $28 a year worse off – really $423 worse off

Dual income couple (50:50 income split) – no children

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $436, government assistance is $1249 – therefore $813 a year better off – really $263 better off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $658, government assistance is $780 – therefore $122 a year better off – really $221 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $960, government assistance is $780 – therefore $180 worse off – really $523 worse off

Dual income couple (50:50 income split) with two dependent children, one aged under five and one aged 6-12

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $554, government assistance is $1540 – therefore $986 a year better off – really $308 better off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $741, government assistance is $1028 – therefore $287 a year better off – really $165 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $985, government assistance is $984 – therefore $1 a year worse off – really $434 worse off

Dual income couple (70:30 income split) with three dependent children, one aged under five-year-old and two aged 6-12

  • On $30,000 a year: Average cost if living impact is $623, government assistance is $1322 – therefore $699 a year better off – really $117 better off
  • On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $793, government assistance is $1265 – therefore $472 a year better off – really $85 worse off
  • On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $1040, government assistance is $750 – therefore $290 a year worse off – really $620 worse off

Single aged pensioner

  • On $20,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $358, government assistance is $382 – therefore $24 a year better off – really $144 worse off
  • On $40,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $406, government assistance is $845 – therefore $439 a year better off – really $67 better off

Age pensioner couple

  • On $20,000 a year: Average cost of living impact $461, government assistance is $640 – therefore $179 a year better off – really $103 worse off
  • On $50,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $611, government assistance is $1894 – therefore $1283 a year better off – really $450 better off

In other words, most people will be worse off!

Now, if an emissions trading scheme is such a great idea, why does the government need to bribe us to accept it?

If the government is telling such obvious spin to exaggerate the effect of government assistance, what makes them think we are going to believe the cost of living impact will be as low as they say?

What other spin has been put on the global warming and emissions trading sales pitch?