Nothing is as foolhardy as telling people how they should live. In our society, our Government does this over and over again and with reckless abandon. Once upon a time for instance in the US the bureaucracy had a motto of “do not harm.” Well that time has gone and went and the politicians here and in Australia especially recently have gone and either went mad or become struck stupid. Whatever the reason, politicians seem to be actively trying to destroy our countries in the name of minority groups such as greens who are nothing but activists who make a living on spreading fear and mayhem to increase their donations and/or keep their business of bilking the common man out of their hard-earned money so they can live the easy life pampered and sitting in their arm-chairs. These minority groups are really nothing but socialists which I will explain later, but rest assured that any solution they have involves a strong central Government to tackle said problem with a solution set that can only be accomplished via that same principle.
This is especially apparent today in Australia. The Clean Energy Bill formally passed the lower house of the Australian Congress if you will which is where it would have a large fight to pass. A bill where 60% of the population was strongly against it and where 30% were in favor….a bill where the Government promised that if elected it would not implement a carbon tax. The people are the ones who are getting the bum rush on this one.
Basically, Australia just passed a law to “tax Carbon Dioxide. ” Yes, they have implemented a tax on the same air we exhale and just like the US before this, they are taxing it calling this air pollution. Before I go into why this is foolhardy, I wanted to look at specifics of this bill and look at why it is important here in the US especially that we learn why this is something to watch for in the future.
Most notably, this bill is so bad that they HAD to put in a stipulation to make it so that it is just as bad to repeal it as it is to pass it. The economic effects are drastic and terrible, and the worst part of it at all is this: Anyone who tries to repeal it is going to be on the hook to the super-rich who buy carbon credits for quite a bit of money if you repeal the act. This is scandalous to say the least to pass a law which writes in stipulations that the super-rich are to be paid off by someone whether it is the Government or some other entity. Quite wrong if you think about it.
Under this section:
308 Compensation for acquisition of property
(1) If the operation of this Act or the
regulations would result in an acquisition of property from a person otherwise than
on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of
compensation to the person.
(2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not
agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings
in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery from the Commonwealth of
such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.
(3) In this section:
acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.
just terms has the
same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.
Which goes towards section 103 which basically states that a carbon unit is personal property.
In other words, this matters because now a new market is opened up to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people who can bilk the Government in other words. This is just flat-out wrong, and it is a travesty that such a bill was passed that did not allow for even its own repeal.
But let’s look at the other angle. Why is it that people think carbon credits are a good thing? Under Kyoto, these only decreased CO2 emissions by 0.9% by best estimate (when they were supposedly supposed to do so by 20%) and when most of the credits even with that estimate have been found to be fraudulent in nature being run by the mafia among other criminals and actually do not reduce anything?
Do we learn nothing from the past as a species? This idea of a new banking market was pure hubris and was set to fail the second it was implemented anywhere because frankly trading air is the worst idea ever. There is too much capability for fraud and too much just pure madness. Carbon credits from their largest source still come from the idea that we pay third world countries to not industrialize. In other words, we tell these nations where the people are poor and malnourished that we have ours, but you can not have yours. Giving massive amounts of money to Government leaders will indeed stop them from building infrastructure, but the cost to humanity is unmeasurable.
And I did not even mention why CO2 is harmless. We are told in the US that it is pollution (see my post here: https://benfrommo.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/what-the-endangerment-finding-really-means/ )
In Australia, they call it “clean energy” without regard to the economic consequences and the eventual rise in the use of other greenhouse gases to compensate. If you raise energy costs for everyone in some fashion, that leaves less money for other things that people can buy. This causes an economic downturn in that regard. In addition, an economy such as Australia’s is heavily invested in mining. With such a tax on coal especially, the economy is going to face that second wave of down-turn that even if repealed within a year, means that the Australian citizens are on the hook for either paying for a harmless gas, or for paying off rich bankers who purchase carbon credits elsewhere. Quite a lose-lose situation for the common man of Australia.
Which is mostly the point of laws such as this. They are not to save the planet. If someone was serious about “stopping greenhouse gases” we have a solution today. It is called nuclear power and despite scare stories to the contrary, it is the solution if people really were after a solution instead of just causing more problems. It does not require a socialistic system to be done safely, it does not require extensive economic changes, and most of all this solution involves a power source that we have already developed and proven that it works. France today uses this very solution to develop 100% free from CO2 energy. But yet, the solution which would cost a fraction of every climate change act or solution is not looked upon for pure political reasons. It seems that nuclear power is not “politically correct” enough to be a solution, so instead of a solution that already works and is tested and true, the greens have us implementing additional taxes and additional regulations that do nothing but cripple free markets.
In the end, none of this agenda is about CO2, but namely about implementing political policy and ideology that goes along with their beliefs. In other words, they are watermelons. They are people who tell us they are green, but on the inside are really red..and as such they will do anything to destroy our Governments in order to install a new USSR. If the past is any indication, we can count on future ideas of theirs requiring huge Government intervention for every environmental problem. The choice is always ours of course. We can throw the bums out who pay lip service to these minority groups, or we can pay for it through our blood, sweat and tears. As always, the choice will be ours.
For further reading on the bill’s passage:
The information on this blog is handy.
Great article Ben.
Regarding the unrepealability of the Australian legislation, Opposition Leader (and Prime Minister-in-waiting) Tony Abbott today warned businesses not to buy post-dated emissions permits, as his government would render them worthless. As I stated over at LibertyGibbert, the business community in Australia are almost unanimously opposed to this legislation. So, while it will be a dog-fight to get rid of this new tax, it won’t be impossible.
Very well said, and this does change the facts ever so slightly. If you think about it, now instead of an “unrepealable” law you have a law that is merely “difficult” to remove.
That is a very large step and believe it or not it makes Tony Abbott really seem like he is serious about his declarations. I think the good part of this is that at the very least he seems to be honest about the original declaration and is going to fight labor over this as much as he can.