tip off

Essential: we don’t like carbon tax any more now it’s passed

We don’t like the carbon tax any more since legislation passed the House of Representatives. But we don’t like it any less after the perceived unseemliness of the triumphalism that followed its passage.

That’s the message in new polling from Essential Research, which shows little change in the level of support for Labor’s landmark legislative achievement.

Conducted between Wednesday and Sunday, the online survey of 1047 respondents shows 39% supporting the carbon tax against 53% opposed. This is slightly better for the government than the Galaxy poll in today’s News Limited tabloids (34% support and 57% oppose), but effectively unchanged on Essential’s survey of September 19. And it continues a pattern where Essential Research’s online panel methodology has consistently produced less unfavourable results on this issue than phone polls.

Essential also gave respondents three options for what should happen to the tax if Labor is defeated at the next election, in contrast to Galaxy’s approach of asking whether a victorious Tony Abbott would have a mandate for its repeal (to which 60% said yes).

Thirty-four per cent favoured a double dissolution to secure the repeal of the tax, with 33% prepared to allow that the tax should remain “if it proves to be effective in reducing carbon pollution”. More than 20% felt it should remain in any case “to provide certainty for individuals and business”. As always with questions related to the carbon tax, a strong polarity was recorded between Coalition and Labor/Greens voters.

Respondents were also asked to take their pick from 12 options to describe the positions taken by the leaders on asylum seekers, and the results provide consistently unflattering reading for Julia Gillard. The bitterest pill would be that she outscored Abbott on both “too soft” (21% to 7%) and “too hard” (10% to 6%).

Abbott even managed to record an effectively equal score to Gillard on his traditional negative of “just playing politics” (47% to Gillard’s 46%).

There is some relatively good news for the prime minister on the monthly measure of leaders’ personal ratings, in the shape of an 11-point improvement in her net approval rating after a disastrous showing in the September 12 poll. Gillard’s approval is up six points to 34% and her disapproval down five to 59%, and her deficit on better prime minister is down from four points (40% to 36%) to one (39% to 38%).

Abbott’s ratings have recorded no significant change: his approval and disapproval are both up one, to 40% and 51% respectively.

On voting intention, the major parties have recorded no change on last week’s result. The Coalition continues to lead 48% to 33% on the primary vote and 55% to 45% on two-party preferred, with the Greens up a point to 11%.

165
  • 1
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    No we don’t like it Willaim. It will make Australia more uncompetitive and negatively impact our quality of life and do NOTHING for the global environment

  • 2
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    SB - Please provide evidence for your statement or stop repeatedly making it! And the we you are referring to is what 55% of the poulation based on combinng 2 polls of 1000 people, I think you need a bigger majority than that to be convincing. And finally a majority does not make a point of view correct.

    As for this article, who really cares why do we have this constant poll driven analysis when we are 2 years away from an election. Does it really mean that much that the ALP has snuck up 1% in 2PP? Let’s have more policy analysis and more policy analysis!!

  • 3
    dfgdgdf
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Yes we do like it William. It will make Australia more competitive in the area of renewable energy, it will positively impact our quality of life by giving extra payments or reduced taxes to the majority of the population, the effects on the global environment may or may not be minimal but it will be good for the local environment and it sure beats doing nothing.

  • 4
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    SB - Please provide evidence for your statement or stop repeatedly making it! And the we you are referring to is what 55% of the poulation based on combining 2 polls of 1000 people, I think you need a bigger majority than that to be convincing. And finally a majority does not make a point of view correct.

  • 5
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    who really cares why do we have this constant poll driven analysis when we are 2 years away from an election. Does it really mean that much that the ALP has snuck up 1% in 2PP? Let’s have more policy analysis and more policy analysis!!

  • 6
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    The majority does make the point of view correct in Australia. Its doesn’t in a Community Country, I agree, but it does in Australia.

    Majority is how democracys run. Sorry to let you down.

    Gillard wants to increase costs for Australian businesses. So that make us uncompetitive.

    The compensation Gillard says will compensate, wow you get an extra $33 a year on their formula. But you cannot trust labor, they have wasted billions elsewhere and have demonstrated they cannot estimate anything.

  • 7
    Mary Rose Liverani
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Suzanne, I’d find your assertions a lot more impressive if you could support them with data - or is that too much to ask in a ‘discussion’? Or at least show that you have made it your business to exam Gillard’s arguments closely and can rebut them with alternative data and sound reasoning.

    That way, we might all learn something.

    Shifting tack slightly, what is it about Crikey that makes me think it’s only affecting to be different from the other media? Why give space to polling results for instance? In the present climate their only role is to keep stoking the faggots being stacked up around the PM.

    MRL

  • 8
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    The majority does make the point of view correct in Australia” Sorry Suzanne but that is not the case, the majoirty of people thought Collingwood would win the AFL grand final, not correct. At one stage the majority thought the world was flat, not correct. And even if you were to say the majority was correct would that mean that a carbon price was the correct thing in 2007 but now it isn’t, and in 2015 when Abbott wants to call a double dissoultion if the polls then show a majority of people want to keep it does that make it incorrect?

    Also how do we measure this majority, in 1999 beazley won the majority vote but we still ended up with a howard govt and a GST that was unpopular in the polls.

    Gillard wants to increase costs for Australian businesses. So that make us uncompetitive.” This isn’t evidence SB, where are the numbers, where is the qualified opinion? Who are we competing against, which businesses will be effected?

  • 9
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    MAry - Shifting tack slightly, what is it about Crikey that makes me think it’s only affecting to be different from the other media? Why give space to polling results for instance?

    Completely agree!! I made a similar comment but it is stuck in moderation for who knows why.

  • 10
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    @ Mary Rose Liverani

    Mary, its quite simple. Australian companies produce goods and services and their is a cost base. If anything increases the cost base, we need to increase prices.

    We increase prices and then have to compete in local and overseas markets.

    We are competing against importers who dont have Carbon Tax in their cost base
    We are competing against other exporters and local in country companies to sell our goods and services, who dont have this added cost base.

    Failing that, we reduce our margins, pay less tax, perhaps employ less - regardless Australia is the loser.

    We already have a high cost base, we are making it worse.

    With the multiplier impacts throughout economy, its make it even worse.

    The compensation package, while inadequate, does not compensate beyond the initial price, when who knows what it will be.

  • 11
    Ninja toes
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    @SB

    The majority of people once believed the earth was flat, women were inferior to men, and that aboriginal people were not human beings. It takes radical thinking, often in the minority, to challenge and change the minds of the majority. Which side of history the climate debate belongs on is yet to be decided (although I’m confident it’s true), but humanity gets nowhere by toeing the majority line.

    Debating these kinds of predictions seems pointless anyway; we’ll all get to see the actual results of the tax in a few short years. If you’re so confident of your prognostications, then feel free to crow on that sad (and imaginary) day.

  • 12
    jeebus
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Did anyone honestly think passing a new tax is going to improve a government’s approval ratings? Regardless of the polling, history is likely to judge it as better late than never.

    @Suzanne, you’ve obviously never heard the phrase, “Lead by example”. Our actions create momentum for other nations to act. As many have said, climate change is a great moral issue of our times and we have a responsibility to future generations to start bearing the costs now so that their costs won’t be exponentially greater.

    Australia as a nation is wealthier than it has ever been. If there are people and businesses struggling during our golden age, it’s not the fault of the carbon tax. It’s a question of whether the benefits of our national resources are being shared fairly.

    And that’s another worthy issue of discussion altogether!

  • 13
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    I think that in ten (or maybe twenty) years time we will see that both major sides of the climate debate were wrong.

    The deniers will be seen to be wrong as temperatures continue to rise, and the effects of climate change become even more apparent.

    And all those who now think that the carbon tax is real action will come to realise that the action taken by Australia (and the rest of the world) was far too little for any significant prevention of global warming.

    I do wonder what those who now either deny climate change or who think that the tax is real action will think of themselves when the planet makes clear that they were wrong.

    Australia is predicted to suffer the consequences of climate change worse than most others, so I guess we will get what we deserve.

  • 14
    TheTruthHurts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Chinese made product in dirty coal fired power station = No Carbon Tax

    Australian made product made with the cleanest technologies available = Gillard Carbon Taxed

    Can someone remind me how this is meant to reduce emissions again?

    The tax is too complicated, too costly to Australian business and won’t work. Gillards own Carbon Tax calculator says anyone making over $50K a year will be worse off, so why would Aussies be excited about it?

    Do it right and do it once, put an export tariff on coal and make the Chinese and Indians pay a Carbon Tax. Use the funds raised to allow households to purchase solar panels/solar hotwater in northern Australia and gas heating/gas hotwater in southern Australia.

    Of course I’m being way too logical, my plan would actually work at both reducing WORLD global emissions and Australian emissions without the Aussie taxpayer worse off.

  • 15
    guytaur
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    When are these polls going to start polling 1000 people per electorate?

  • 16
    san jose
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    i’m still going to buy tomatoes from the local organic farmer than those imported from…..india?
    i’m, still going to buy my cheese and spinach pasties from the local bakery over those imported from…..korea?
    i’m still going to buy my cacti from the local nursery over those imported from…..iceland?
    and don’t get me started on coopers beer…..no seriously, don’t ;-)

  • 17
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    @ jeebus

    If lead by example, gets your an approval rating in the 20% range, good luck to you and all your endeavours.

  • 18
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    The poll was 79,000 people?

  • 19
    Peter Sandery
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    is it compensation or a form of bribery enshrined in a legislative fiat?

  • 20
    SBH
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Willaim - William
    more uncompetitive - less competetive
    negatively impact - adversly affect
    Its doesn’t in a Community country - err? It and Communist country perhaps?
    democracys - democracies
    have wasted billions - oh please
    local in country - local in-country
    With the multiplier impacts throughout economy, its make it even worse.
    The compensation package, while inadequate, does not compensate beyond the initial price, when who knows what it will be. - Oh sweet jesus, where do I start?

    Suzanne Blake, could you at least try?

  • 21
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    The polls are very important, cause this Government could topple at anytime.

    Even you should be able to see that with the cabinet leaks on the weekend. Its least stable Government in Australia for 80 years.

  • 22
    TheTruthHurts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    The majority of people once believed the earth was flat, women were inferior to men, and that aboriginal people were not human beings. It takes radical thinking, often in the minority, to challenge and change the minds of the majority. “

    At some point(late 1970’s i reckon) the left ran out of valid causes so had to invent new ones.

    Climate Change”(wasn’t it Global Warming a few years ago?) is the latest crusade.

    I don’t actually disagree with the theory behind global warming in that humans are effectively taking solids and liquids out of the ground and turning them into gases which are then released into the atmosphere upsetting the natural carbon cycle.

    My problem is that “Climate Change” is being focused on when that giant purple elephant in the room that is the real issue is being completely ignored by the moral doomdayers. And that elephant is called Population Growth. It took mankind 1 Million years to reach a population of 3 Bill in 1960. Yet to reach the next 3 Bill it only took another 40 Years. To me thats disturbing. But then it gets worse, by 2030 there will be another 3 Billion.

    So from 1960 to 2030 the world population has tripled from 3 Bill to 9 Bill.

    But here we are…. talking about Climate Change. Some lefties decided this was the issue we would talk about and focus on so here we are. Well no, I’m not a sheep following the flock, being told what to believe and what our cause as humans must be. What is happening now is the biggest conjob on mankind in the history of this planet. 5% cuts, 10% cuts, it’s all just silly numbers by silly people. What this world needs is radical changes to reign in population growth, both here in Australia and worldwide. THEN you can talk cuts.

  • 23
    guytaur
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    The Parliament did what the majority of people voted for this week.
    Passed a price on carbon to set up an ETS.
    Rejected off shore processing.

    It is just due to media hype and Labor stupidity they are not rising faster in the polls. Give it time. Like Howard and his rock bottom polls this will turn around with time. All weekly polls do is help keep people in jobs and stimulating the economy. Monthly or even two monthky polls would not make much difference except to the HUN headline writers.

  • 24
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Suzanne - “We are competing against importers who dont have Carbon Tax in their cost base
    We are competing against other exporters and local in country companies to sell our goods and services, who dont have this added cost base.” Which countries? China, South Lorea, South Africa, Europe, New Zealand no all those have or soon will have a Carbon Price, so which countries and which industries?

    Could you also provide some economic data or report to support your argument!

    The poll was 79,000 people?” Which poll? What are you talking about?

    TTH - “Chinese made product in dirty coal fired power station = No Carbon Tax” YOu might want to check that fact, China is implementing a carbon tax and has just a announced a tax or it’s resources.

    Gillards own Carbon Tax calculator says anyone making over $50K a year will be worse off” YOu should check that fact as well, is that a single person, someone with 1 child or more? Not even the wildy inaccurate opposition makes this claim.

  • 25
    san jose
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    THETRUTHHURTS re: depopulation - you could always lead by example? be the change you want to see in the world? but no i guess, “the world needs less people. but i need to stick around to tell them that”

  • 26
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    @SB,

    Do you really believe that the government could topple at any time?

    If you have any intelligence and have been following the reality of federal politics you would see that the government is stable and (at least until Labor decide they want an election) so is Gillard’s leadership.

    Note that I’ve yet to hear any independent or Adam suggest that they may not support Labor in the lower house in a motion of confidence.

    And as the deal with Adam and the independents was made with Gillard, and not Labor, much negotiation would have to happen for Labor to ditch Gillard, i.e. this means that Gillard is secure for now.

    Of course the media have got carried away with the circus of politics, and there are those support team Abbott that sing and dance as if the circus show meant something.

    Just like I doubt I’ll ever find out what Peter Garrett really thinks, I doubt we will ever know for sure what the Liberal cheer squad really think. But I do find it hard to believe that SB really is as ignorant and stupid as her postings would suggest.

  • 27
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    SB - “The polls are very important, cause this Government could topple at anytime.” What and if it does we have to go to the last opinion poll to decide govt? Seriously how does knowing what way 1000 people you have never met are going to vote alter your view on the issues? The only people who find polls to be “very important” are people to stupid to make up their own mind. No wonder you made that statement then.

  • 28
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    MWH - “But I do find it hard to believe that SB really is as ignorant and stupid as her postings would suggest.” Believe it.

  • 29
    kevrenor
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    TTH - “Of course I’m being way too logical ..”

    Oh dear, that brightened up my day. Mirth is good for the health they say.

    Now. less than a week and Crikey has a headline like that? No wonder I keep baulking at becoming a subscriber … you keep failing!

  • 30
    SBH
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy, a low blow so soon after the event. Next year, you’ll see, next year.

    As to polls, today’s ABC reporting and analysis of last week’s events was a prime example of how unhelpful Australian media have become. The triumph of a minority government getting something through like a carbon price was nowhere near as fascinating as an inconsequential and fairly standard cabinet ‘leak’.

    Rather than focus on what the effect of defeat of the Malaysia solution might be, Grattan and Kelly faffed on about why Gillard decided to run with the bill then backed off (spoiler alert - she did that because it looked like it might get up until the morning of the vote). No discussion about what the actual events meant for our system of processing asylum applications.

    They then went on about what might happen in the event of a double dissolution! Great, really interesting stuff but you might as productively discuss what might happen if a meteor the size of Manhattan were to strike the Earth (for my fellow pedants out there, no meteorites do not strike the Earth, it is only after a meteor strikes that it becomes a meteorite). Why not look at what the successful vote actually meant and go to some trouble to explain the new carbon pricing system.

    So instead of reporting and analysing news we had a gossip round up and a bit of Nostradamus. This is what passes for quality journalism in Australia

  • 31
    TheTruthHurts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    THETRUTHHURTS re: depopulation - you could always lead by example? be the change you want to see in the world? but no i guess, “the world needs less people. but i need to stick around to tell them that” “

    Well I’m not talking mass murders or suicides, I’m talking about population growth controls and natural reductions.

    For example India’s population is expected to increase by 200 Million in the next 20 Years. Do we hear a murmur from the left though? A whisper about this incredible growth in population? Nope, lets talk about Australia’s 5% cut to our 1% emissions of our 22 Million people.

    China has put in place a one child policy which has helped slow population growth, yet places like India go unabated and not a word of worry from any of our “world leaders”.

    Even hear in Australia we have “big Australia”(that means big pollution, more land clearing, more greenhouse gases for the kids playing at home) from people like Kevin Rudd who would like to see Australia reach 40 Million by 2050. Yet will having more people in Australia make our lives better? Are people in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane happier now then they were 30 Years ago?

    The biggest moral challenge of our time will be population control. You think our cities are crowded now, you add another 3 Billion to the mix and find out what it’s gonna be like. As a nation and as a world we face the oppurtunity now to do something about population before it’s too late.

    But alas… the lefties want to talk about soda bubbles.

  • 32
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    TTH-“For example India’s population is expected to increase by 200 Million in the next 20 Years” The qucikest way to slow population growth in these area’s is to increase their standard of living and education levels. So that being the case then we should increase our foreign aid to India and we shouldn’t be pushing for them to cut their carbon emmissions by the same amount as us until those increases have been made, is that your argument TTH?

    And what exactly is the “rights” policy on poulation growth? Wasn’t it the right who brought us “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”

  • 33
    Ninja toes
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    @TTH
    Here is a useful link:
    http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

    It appears your dreaded “lefties” actually are talking about population issues, as well as climate. No one is suggesting there is only one major issue facing the planet. Some people prioritise one problem over all the others, but the truth is there is a lot to contend with in the coming century. Climate is a lot easier and safer to grapple as an issue than population, so it’s only natural it would come first.

  • 34
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying?

  • 35
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    @ shepherdmarilyn

    They ARE paying it indirectly, dimwit

  • 36
    TheTruthHurts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    So that being the case then we should increase our foreign aid to India and we shouldn’t be pushing for them to cut their carbon emmissions by the same amount as us until those increases have been made, is that your argument TTH?”

    Why are the left obsessed with Carbon Emissions?

    Why not water pollution? Why not land clearing? Why not landfills?

    The world has a problem and it’s called the human population. Who was the person who said Carbon Pollution would be the lefts big moral crusade? Who cares, the bloody Earths gonna be so packed with people in 30 Years why would I worry about Carbon Pollution?

    And what exactly is the “rights” policy on poulation growth? Wasn’t it the right who brought us “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country””

    This is true and I’m happy to admit the right have let down their guard, reason being is that business make a lot of money through population growth in Australia. That doesn’t mean that Australians are more wealthy, just companies. The richest countries per capita in the world have small populations.

    I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. We can easily do this by drastic reductions in immigration as Australia has a flatline domestic population growth.

  • 37
    Michael
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t it lovely to see the full gamut of Crikey FRUIT LOOPS out today.
    Al bare arsed and snotty nosed, running around with flowers in their hair, rose on their cheeks & smoke up their arse.
    You are a sight to behold brothers & sisters and as usual very consistent - not one sound argument amongst you.
    Fran Bailey step up please kid and bring some real crazy into this jolly forum.

  • 38
    John Bennetts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy: That increase in education levels better start with TTH before moving onto India. Address the biggest problem first.

    TTH: Population levels will come down in one of two ways.

    First: Education, physical security, social security (eg pensions) and access to reliable and plentiful energy are the tested and proven means by which to achieve voluntary ZPG. No statistical effect will be noticeable for the first 50 years or more, due to increasing life expectancy and decreasing infant morbidity.

    Second: War, pestilence, famine, depletion of resources (cf Flannery’s “The Future Eaters and Jarred Diamond’s “Collapse”). Effects will be noticeable, immediate and brutal.

    Clearly, you are advocating the second option, because otherwise, the global 9 billion mark is already locked in.

  • 39
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    TTH - “I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. ” And what do we do when we get to 25m? Is it one in one out from then on? Sorry Grandpa but I just got pregnant so you have about 9 months before we have to knock you off unless you leave the country.

    Why are the left obsessed with Carbon Emissions?” My point was that in order to get there standard of living up they will have to keep growing their Carbon emmissions, an argument from the right is that why should we cut ours until they have cut theirs, but your argument is that we will cut their emmissions and many other things if we cut their population growth which is best achieved by increasing their standard of living. So my question still stands should we actively assit them to raise this standard of living and if not what should we do?

    SB - still waiting on that evidence!

  • 40
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    SBH - “As to polls, today’s ABC reporting and analysis of last week’s events was a prime example of how unhelpful Australian media have become” Another example is how they select whichever part of the poll suits their “narrative”. In days gone by all that got reported was 2PP, now if the govt picks up in the 2PP as happenned today, they focus on the preferred labor leader or the primary vote or whatever other ridiculous thing was polled. The other way to go for them is to just focus on the number, with no mention of a reduction or increase.

    But apparently this is all very important.

  • 41
    GocomSys
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I complimented Crikey earlier on another thread for not “headlining” latest opinion poll results by our five competing pollsters! I’ll take it back!
    Suggest:
    Why don’t we have one political “scorecard” poll provided by each individual pollster every weekday morning and several other opinion polls on various other subjects scattered during the week?
    Why not do it as a matter of cause together with the latest rate of the Aussie $ and other “business” and “finance” data?
    And while we are at it why not make it official and let the media and vested interests run the country? They are doing it already anyway.
    Are some of us still discussing whether climate change is real or not? Are we her in OZ totally deranged? It seems like it.
    By the way I enjoyed some of the enlightened comments earlier.
    Unfortunately lots of “dummies” are out again today and they spoiled it somewhat!

  • 42
    David Allen
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    TTH

    I have considerably sympathy with your views re population.

    You need to be corrected on one matter which you keep repeating though. It was George W. Bush’s propagandists who promulgated the use of the phrase ‘Climate Change’ rather than ‘Global Warming’.

    It wasn’t the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate change”. (www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange)

    Luntz wrote that :
    “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge,

  • 43
    TheTruthHurts
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    TTH - “I think the Liberals should man up and commit to an upper limit of 25 Million on Australia’s population. ” And what do we do when we get to 25m? Is it one in one out from then on? Sorry Grandpa but I just got pregnant so you have about 9 months before we have to knock you off unless you leave the country.”

    I’ve already explained Australia has a flat line internal population growth.

    You simply clamp down further on immigration to stabilise a 25 Mill limit. No knocking off of grandpa required, just some guts from our politicians.

    Not buying the line we need immigration to deal with an ageing population either, sounds like a C++ infinite loop error to me. Besides people can work up into their 60’s and even 70’s now, so having an “old population” might not be a bad thing.

  • 44
    Michael
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    @GOCOMSYS

    Unfortunately lots of “dummies” are out again today and they spoiled it somewhat!”

    Knock, knock! Are you suggesting you’re not part of the “dummies” conglomerate?
    You can run but you can’t hide here brother.

  • 45
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    @ David Allen

    Thats right, the climate goes in cycles, had done so since the beginning of time.

    For example the sea level in Sydney Harbour in 1901-1910 was higher than it was 2001- 2010.

  • 46
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    @ Michael

    It is a pity you are not on this board daily……or hourly

  • 47
    GocomSys
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    SHEPHERDMARILYN posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange:
    You asked: “Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying”?

    And a “dimwit” unasked responded with “they ARE paying it indirectly”.
    It’s good to know where one belongs and who one is, isn’t that so SB?

  • 48
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    TTH - “I’ve already explained Australia has a flat line internal population growth.” YOu may have explained it but that doesn’t make it true, The below Info is from the ABS’

    On 17 October 2011 at 03:58:10 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be: 22,735,553
    This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2011 and assumes growth since then of:
    one births every 1 minute and 46 seconds,
    one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds ,
    a net gain of one international migration every 2 minutes and 44 seconds , leading to
    an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 31 seconds .”

    As uou can see there are roughly 2 births for every death at the moment, or every 3 minute 40 seconds our population increases by 1 person without immigration. How is this flat line?

  • 49
    GocomSys
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    SHEPHERDMARILYN posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange:
    You asked: “Why are the pollsters asking the dimwits about a tax they won’t be paying”?
    And a “dimwit” unasked responded with “they ARE paying it indirectly”.
    It’s good to know where one belongs and who one is, isn’t that so SB?

  • 50
    GocomSys
    Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    MICHAEL posted Monday, 17 October 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Whom the shoe fits Michael, why would you respond otherwise! Join SB and TTH our residents!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...