Reflections on the Carbon Tax Vote

With the Carbon Tax legislation up for a vote on Wednesday, this is a critical week. Skeptics should embrace the challenge of communicating common-sense and logic over Green ideology. I feel strongly we should not give up, wave a white flag and surrender.

Every week there are more reasons not to pass this legislation. The global temperature continues not to rise. The ocean heat remains stable. Global warming appears to have peaked. More research is published showing flaws in previous studies used by the IPCC.

Even if global warming were a problem, which it is not, as hundreds of billions of tax-payer dollars have failed to find little more of concern than reduced Arctic ice, and reduced hurricanes, both of which are beneficial anyway.

But if it were, new technologies that are safe, cheap and produce abundant energy without CO2 emissions are right around the corner. Among the climate bloggers, I have been the first and consistently brought the Rossi E-Cat technology to your attention.

The E-Cat is a simple combination of nickel powder, hydrogen, a heater and a secret catalyst that produces abundant nuclear energy with very little radiation or radioactive by-products. People don’t get the importance of this yet. But you can buy one now. In 10 years this or a similar process will probably supply the majority of our power for a tenth of the cost of present sources.

The Greens say that its good to reduce our consumption of energy for the planet’s sake. That is utter nonsense. Energy use is directly correlated with human welfare, health, cleaner environment, and nature conservation.

Even if it does pass, the victory for the burgeoning bureaucracy and nervous ninnies will be temporary for two reasons:

1. With every passing year, as it has for the past decade, the temperature fails to meet the bogus model predictions, the poor science that bolstered this policy will be revealed to a poorer but wiser public.

2. As cold fusion technology takes off, the energy sources that need massive government subsidies like wind and solar will be first to go, then increasingly hydrocarbons, purely through market mechanisms.

Government intervention, research and carbon pricing will have contributed nothing. While ideologically motivated climate-science has left a bad taste, it will not last. The fruit of human ingenuity is sweet.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Reflections on the Carbon Tax Vote

  1. Ownership of Australia’s minerals, with some exceptions for royal metals and uranium, is vested in the Crown in the power of the States. Thus, Victoria owns its coal.
    The ownership of minerals in Australia is subject to the primary maxim “Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos”, meaning “to whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths”.
    Carbon dioxide is a mineral. Indeed, bottled water with CO2 is named “Mineral water” by some. If Victoria’s coal becomes CO2 or other CO2 goes into the sky, then we have to ask about ownership. Seems to me, if it lives over Victoria, it belongs to Victoria.
    Section 114 of the Constitution says in its latter part “.. nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State”. That’s fairly clear, so far.
    However, section 51 xxxi notes that the Commonwealth has certain powers for “The acquisition of prpoerty on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws”. I’ve not been reading much press about compensation in these Constitutional terms.
    Next, there is a general Constitutional rule that if Commonwealth and State law is in conflict, the former shall prevail.
    Finally, section 55 notes that “Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect”.
    I take the latter to mean that a carbon tax cannot be mixed up with carbon trading schemes.
    So, what we are seeing with that enormous bundle of paper named the Carbon Tax Bill has so many diverse implications that Constitutional lawyers are bound to benefit.
    One matter is certain. It is of doubtful legality, ab initio, and there are many points of clarification needed.

  2. Pingback: polecam link

  3. Pingback: cat memes

  4. Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów dostawczych

  5. Pingback: pokazy kulinarne

  6. Pingback: http://naukajazdy.pl/forum/member.php/9889-milo010

  7. Pingback: strona firmy

  8. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  9. Pingback: Bench Craft Company

  10. Pingback: kliknij

  11. Pingback: polecam

  12. Pingback: link do strony

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s