Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL EnvironmentZone, The EYE-BALL Opinion > CARBON TAX – more comment on the why and how …

CARBON TAX – more comment on the why and how …

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2 Advertise Here
Title: CARBON TAX …”
… more comment on the why and how …
Thought of the Day …
… Why do we allow Governments to introduce new taxes to extend the taxpayer burden …?

The Climate Change debate rages on – a forum in Canberra last week showed how ineffectual the selling of a “Carbon Tax” has been. I ask the question – why is it called a CARBON TAX? The research undertaken by this author in the last few months and previously published at this Blog site – and linked below – suggest that it is not CARBON that is responsible for CLIMATE CHANGE – and that then begs us all to ask the question – what is the CARBON TAX all about?

The previous EYE-BALL Opinion posts on the CARBON TAX debate can be read visiting the links provided below:

Previous ‘Carbon Tax’ Posts:

  1. Carbon Tax – a simplistic analysis – Part 1
  2. Carbon Tax – more research – Part 2
  3. Carbon Tax – continuing the dumb down debate – Part 3


Understanding the CARBON TAX:

Some History – The GST TAX:

Within the public domain – the understanding the CARBON TAX is not such a simple equation – all the public can see is that the Government wants to introduce a new tax.

It was the same in the early 90’s when the then opposition Leader John Hewson‘s established a Coalition GST policy they were going to go to the upcoming election on.

With Keating the current Labour PM – Hewson’s version of a GST was sunk asunder by an interview Hewson had with Mike Willesse on his Nationally broadcast and acclaimed A CURRENT AFFAIR program –

Yes I know – how far this A Current Affairs show has fallen down the ladder in its current format … see below to view that short yet soul destroying footage – it runs for 1:40 min as a YouTube replay …

The upshot was devestating for Mr Hewson and his election bid – he was outed as Liberal Leader after losing the un-loosable 92′ election on his GST platform. As all crumbled Leaders do – Hewson fell on his sword and John Howard took the reins after a few interim trial Leaders – [ one being the Costello and Downer show that lasted a few months ] –

Howard went to the 1996 Election on a ‘NO-GST’ promise – he beat Mr Keating – [ shock horror and the defeat made Mr Keating a bitter man – that is another story for another day ].

Mr Howard went to the polls again three years later where he ran his re-election campaign based on a GST ticket and was re-elected. His opponent was the hapless Mr Kim Beazley. In 1992′ the electorate said NO to a GST – yet two elections or some 4 years later – the same electorate voted for Mr Howard based on a new GST platform.

[That is also another story for another day – he used public monies to convince the electorate that a GST would be good for the country – something his party is now arguing that the current Government should not do to convince the electorate about the Carbon Tax – hypocrisy at its finest..]

There is something in this conundrum – was it in the way the GST was being sold by Mr Hewson – or did Mr Hewson look so stupid during the Willesse interview that no public was ever gonna give him the keys to the Lodge …

Was it solely Mr Hewson’s version of the GST and his inability to explain the new TAX that cost him his creditability – or was it the question Willesse asked that was unanswerable in the time format offered?


The Proposed CARBON TAX:

We are now at a similar place on CARBON TAX. Nobody understands it yet many pretend they do – the concern is that the name – CARBON TAX – suggests that it is a Tax on CARBON – this is simply not so.

It is important to again reinforce the numbers and what CARBON – CO2 – represents as a portion of the Planet’s atmosphere.

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10-6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10-6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10-6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10-6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Please take note of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and the Carbon Monoxide (CO) levels – .039% and .00001% respectively. This data can be viewed on-line using the Wikipedia link provided here.

In the chart presented below – and linked online here – the 50 year growth in CO2 (Carbon) content in the atmosphere has shown an increase from 315 – 385 over the 50 year period the chart covers. That represents an increase of 22% in CO2 levels during the period – and perhaps the stat that drives the CARBON debate.

However – in real terms that 22% increase in the atmospheric content of CO2 off a base of .039% of 100% – translates to a percentage move of just – .000477% in the Earths atmosphere – that is an increase of 75 parts per million (ppmv) …

To put this another way – if Carbon (CO2) – is responsible for all the blame that CLIMATE CHANGE devestation has produced in the last 50 years – what impact will similar fluctuations in other minute atmospheric components bring?

Have they even been measured?

This debate is far from conclusive from either side.

Please look at the chart below and look at the increase levels – and then read again the .000477% that the movement on this chart really represents. Talk about cooking the books…

What was the CO2 increase 100 years ago over a 50 year period – how about 1000 years ago – and then 100,000 years ago – and to 1,000,000 years ago?-

We know about the Ice Age – was carbon the cause of that ?

No – I remain unconvinced – but to go the total belief route in belief of the science based on a .000477% increase in 50 years – is beyond reasonable comprehension.


CLIMATE CHANGE (Linked to Wikipedia:)

The debate is that there is scientific evidence that Climate Change is happening and has been for several decades. The scientific research proports and concludes further that as this century unfolds – Climate Change will have severe habitat repercussions on the planet. It further makes recommendations that if immediate action is not introduced to combat the forces responsible for the CLIMATE CHANGE – the repercussions will be devastating and include ocean level increases by up to 2 metres within a 100 years.

The belief in the research has reached all levels of Governments – and this is were the confusion begins. Governments are responding on a Global stage and have been since the Kyoto summit in the early 1990’s – see Kyoto Protocol – and the Copenhagen Climate Summit in late 2009.

Both these sumits failed to acheive their stated aims – in fact there are still Nations yet to sign up to the Kyoto sumit recommendations. Australia was one of these Nations until Mr RUDD came to power in 2007 – signing of this protocol was one of the electoral policies his Party chose to run on.

Mr RUDD at the time was seen as a global representative for CLIMATE CHANGE acceptance.

Australians embraced him for his efforts and the mood within this Nation was swinging in favour of accepting CLIMATE CHANGE as proven and needed to be embraced. His capitulation in late 2009 when Copenhagen failed to generate global acceptance – was his death knoll … he rolled over on his Climate Change position and was booted from the Leadership seven months later via an internal spill. The Labour party barely held on to power at the late 2010 elections. In fact the Labour party went to the polls on a no Carbon Tax policy.

Be not confused – this current CARBON TAX and the CLIMATE CHANGE reasoning for the tax – is a highly toxic policy for all sides of Government.

Whereas the GST was a universal tax that was to impact on all consumers equally – the CARBON TAX has many factional sides and vested interest serving those factions are all at play.

Climate change is a very subjective issue – decades of research and scientific data can be made to produce any number of outcomes – Governments are funding Climate Change research – they are not funding research to disprove Climate Change.

Today [30th May 2011] – the Australian PM – Julia Gillard said that she did not want Climate change to be hyjacked – she said that Carbon Tax was necessary to ensure the Planet adapted to Climate Change. Taxing Climate Change was her way of saying – ‘that to ensure Climate Change is stopped – introduce a CARBON TAX – accept the science and get on with preparing the Nation for accepting the CARBON TAX as a means of halting CLIMATE CHANGE’.

The PM finished her comments with – “Cut Carbon Polution – tax the Carbon Polluters” – again another one liner that demonstrates her inability to explain the CARBON TAX reasoning.

Sadly – the current Australian PM was the launcher of the torpedo that sunk Mr RUDD in the Labour Leadership spill in mid 2009 – she was the then sceptic on Climate Change who caused the backflip on Rudd’s positional statement that ‘Climate Change was the greatest moral challenge of the 21st century’.

Today in the HOR Question time – the PM stated that the Australian public supported the Carbon Tax debate and trusted the Labour party to deliver on behalf of the people. The PM is so far removed from political reality – she has no idea what the electorate wants or thinks on this issue. The Question time today [30 May ’11] – was another example of the playground theatrics we are forced to endure every day the House sits.



CARBON as the chemical component CO2 – it makes up less that .4% of the atmosphere – it is essential to grow all food and plant life on the planet. That statement is an important fact in this whole debate and this fact has been lost and been taken over by the CARBON TAX component of the debate.

Trees and plants use and extract CARBON from the atmosphere as part of their ‘photosynsis’ process – and as science goes – without carbon in the atmosphere – plants don’t grow – food cannot be produced – and the planet staves. Quite a reason to have CARBON remain in our atmosphere. Even the CARBON TAX promoters do not disagree with this comment.

A counter argument as to why CARBON levels have increased – is in the deforestation over the last 30 years. Some 30-40% of the planets natural forests have been reduced to urbal spiral and farming land in this period. This level of deforestation is at astronomical levels when compared with the previous 30 years –

The destruction of these forests has had significant impact on increased CARBON levels within the atmosphere – there is no measure out there on this issue that extensive research to date has discovered – you would think that this was as equally important as the reasons for ‘fossil’ fuel emissions being promoted as the reason for climate change.

Yet – it is just as easy to make the assumption that the CARBON that would have been used by the destroyed forests over the last 50 years – might be as much or greater than the the ‘fossil’ fuel emission contributions over the same period. Surely – any creditable scientific undertaking would have attempted to make these types of comparisons?

If one is faced with indisputable evidence of the Planet’s final demise – and all caused by human influence – yes – then there is reason for that emotion and reason to act with urgency.

Yet – the sceptics remain and this whole debate is being engaged with such haste and without the indisputable evidence necessary to persuade the electorate at large. The Government is trying to steamroll the political process for an agenda that is not fully understood on so many levels.


The 2000 Millennium Bug:

Do you remember the panic and the global hysteria surrounding the linked – 2000 millennium bug.aslo known as the Y2K problem. As I recall it was going to render all computers and their roll in control over our lives- i.e. electricity grid disruption – emergency services communications disruptions … etc -usless and cause mass disruptions – bank records were going to be lost – there was global concern over the uncertainty the Y2K rollover was going to cause.

The Federal Governmnment established a Y2K task force headed up in Australia by Maurice Newman to counter the projected problems the Millenium Bug was deemed to be responsible for.

As the millenium rollover – the evidence proved that event came and went with a minimal disruption – the Government claimed that its Task force was the reason it went so smoothly – yet the debate is in general agreement that it was a hyped event and there was never any reason to expend the 10’s million outlayed in preparation. It was a global hoax.


The Rainbow Warrior and GREENPEACE:

The sinking of the RAINBOW WARRIOR in 1985 galvanised world attention on the radical envoronmental activist group GREENPEACE. In recent years their profile campaigns have been focused on Whaling in the Sourthern oceans. The 1985 sinking was connected with French nuclear testing in the pacific.

This event bought International attention to the activist group and what they stood for. It was the first real exposure presented to the World in a mainstream way about any concerns and information about the ‘environment’ – and the deforestation issues happening in the Amazon and elsewhere.

In more recent times – the Greenpeace movement does not have the environmental and ‘green’ profile it once had – the anti-whaling activities are pro-active and involve physical risks on the high seas – they have little to do with Climate Change and a CARBON TAX.


The Reality in current Responses:

If Governments were concerned with CLIMATE CHANGE and its futuristic impact – why are building developers being granted development authority on waterfront land when the forecast is for a rise in sea levels that will make this land uninhabited in 50 years?

Creditability is not there – and that again makes me want to ask the quesion – why the rush to a CARBON TAX? Why with the Billion’s tied up in waterfront properties around this Nation – i.e. Sydney Harbour and the like – Gold Coast and other costal tourist hot-spots – all facing anniation if CLIMATE CHANGE forecasts are correct – is there no zoning or planning urgency being demonstrated to support the Governments belief in the CLIMATE CHANGE position?


So What is this Debate Really About:

For mine it’s a political grab by a desperate Government – propped up and hanging onto power with the help of the GREENS whose political agenda is as it’s Party Name suggests – wanting to turn the environment to all things GREEN – they hate coal producers calling them ‘dirty’ producers. If they took the rhetoric out of their promotions – perhaps creditability might be forthcoming.

Mr Hewson – ex Liberal Party Leader – (early 1990’s) – and now a media commentator on Politics – was out there today with the GREENS arguing the ‘moral challenge’ Climate Change presents – he has taken up the Mr RUDD catchcry.

ABC 24 gave him air time today – [30th May] – to promote his position on the CARBON TAX debate. Other celebrities – including Kate Blanchett and Michael Caton – were also out there in a new privately funded promotion for CLIMATE CHANGE. This has drawn fire from the Opposition in that they see the use of celebrities as ‘unfair’ in that the public are being conned by a celebrity profile as opposed to legitimate reasoning and confirmed debate.

The EYE-BALL is a sceptic and he and many like him do need to be convinced about a CARBON TAX – call it an EMMSSIONS or CLIMATE CHANGE tax and I am more prepared to accept some of the argument – but never on the basis as a CARBON TAX as the debate currently stands.

Rolling out celebrities and profile personalities to support a CARBON TAX position – purely demonstrates the level of emotion being engaged within the debate. To view the ad that everybody is talking about – click the YouTube link below.

The GREENS – who hold the balance of power in this Australian minority Government – and a Political lobby group called GETUP – have rolled out a number of personalities this morning [30th May 2011] – in response to the weekend CLIMATE CHANGE forum whose mandate was to come up with a recommendation for a price on CARBON.

This again reinforced the aggressive agenda being swayed on the electorate. For mine this whole debate is still 5 years or so ahead of itself. I am happy to be convinced – but as yet the debate presented has not convince me. The GOVERNMENT has done a pathetic job in selling this new TAX and the reasons for its intent.

The Science community operate with Government Funding – and notwithstanding Mr Garnutt’s standing as a scientist – and his role in convincing this Government as to the urgency required – his performance at the Climate Change forum last week was less convincing.

If Mr Gaunett’s ability to talk to ordinary people about his Climate Change recommendations were on show at this forum – along with the other co-authors to the paper – this whole debate is one that is happening within the scientific community and they need to prepare language that will allow the larger electorate to understand the science.

It is the EYE-BALL opinion that the CARBON TAX is purely an incentive based TAX introduced to ‘green’ up our energy production.

This might be because ‘fossil’ fule resources are within an expendable timeframe – a very serious diversion if it’s true – it might also be that the CARBON TAX is just another mafia style graft grab being introduced to fund Governments and there grandiose expenditures.

There is so much still to be exposed on the reasons for the haste.

The general public want the reasons explained – the research material presented to date and available globally is not conclussive in layman’s terms. Please give us the data in a format that we can all understand so we can make up our own minds on this issue.

In all global political circles and over the last 6-8 years – there has been heightened academic debate on the subject of CLIMATE CHANGE – Politicians have embraced and befriended the debate – yet if one was to try and engage your Local Member on this topic – about its origins and the connection of a CARBON TAX with Climate Change – most would not know Arthur from Martha – or be able to give concise and convincing reasoning on the subject. This from both sides of the political divide.

They are puppets to a Party Policy on the Environment. Excluding the Government’s Environment Portfolio and the Opposition spokesperson on Environment – the rest of the Members of the House and Senate would have to redirect or ask for time for them to become confident to be able to speak on the matter.

I ask again – where is the public debate – where does one find un-biased research that confirms CARBON as the sole cause of CLIMATE CHANGE?

From the EYE-BALL’s perspective – and I freely admit I am a recently converted Climate Change sceptic – I have sought and searched for the research material to learn more about this debate. I can only come to a conclusion that Governments are in such a rush to impose this new TAX – they are only listening to the science that supports their motive. What is that MOTIVE?

The EYE-BALL opinion is that the CARBON TAX is a very badly worded catch phrase – EMISSION’s TAX would be more apt – there is a case to be made that toxic emission’s other than CARBON are doing harm to our Planet. Where is the research on this? Why is it all focused on CARBON?

CARBON is just one very tiny part of the many emissions being fed into out waterways, our atmosphere – and our food chain by human influences. The CARBON emission calculations in the context in how they are presented – remain unconvincing in any relationship with the time frame of EARTH and its evolutionary cycle.

What has been presented to support the CARBON TAX debate is data pertaining to the harmful by-product emissions that have impacted on EARTH’s natural habitat in a 50 odd year time frame.

The measurements and scientific research udertaken concern global landmass waterways – ocean outflows and flood river runoff – acid rain across Europe – deforestation in Latin America – Asia and Russia – and the long term predictions of how all this is impacting on CLIMATE CHANGE.

With so much at stake – and if CLIMATE CHANGE is proven to be as a result of all ‘EMISSIONS’ – and not just ‘Carbon’ – Global Leaders are making taxing decisions in a time frame far ahead of the debate.

They are using Climate Change promoters and their time frame expectations and predictions to pressure the electorate into accepting a CARBON TAX.

Don’t be fooled – where is the conclusive proof – yet we see the current Leadership challenging the Opposition for not accepting the science when the science is far from proven that CARBON emission is solely responsible for CLIMATE CHANGE.

Mr Tanner – the recent Labour Minister for Finance recently stated on ABC’s The Insiders program – that the current political equation was likened to a kindergarten playground stosch – I will have to concur – the quality of debate in this Nation on this issue is as pathetic as a debate can get – The Opposition will not come out and say they don’t support Climate change because the debate is poised in such a way – they’re douched if they don’t and double douched if they do.

It’s time to grow some balls – get the focus off a ‘price on carbon’ – and resume the debate to emissions or environmental issues based on provable fact – as opposed to the ‘frilly’ and window dressed data that currently supports this CARBON TAX debate. Business and consumers are about to be subjected to 100’s $billions of upgrade and expenditures as a response any approval to a price on Carbon introduced.


Date: Links to Previous Carbon Tax Posts Post by this Author …
June 7th 2011: The Australian Treasurer – Mr Wayne SWAN – exposes his underbelly …
Jun 7th 2011: CARBON TAX – Price of CARBON – a conundrum of conflicts …
Jun 4th 2011: Climate Change and the rush of – Me Too’s …
May 30th 2011: CARBON TAX – more comment on the why and how …
May 29th 2011: EYE-BALL Advocacy – Carbon Tax …
Apr 4th 2011: The continued “DUMB DOWN – CARBON TAX” debate …
Apr 21st 2011: The “Carbon Tax” debate 2 – more research …
Apr 20th 2011: Carbon Tax – a simplistic analysis … if there could ever be one …



  1. yoda
    May 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    I think you have addressed it pretty evenly and yes I am a climate sceptic as well.
    I would like to come from another angle!

    Why is it our responsibility now ie. this generation to get this right now!

    The world is probably in the most dire “straights” it has ever been in.
    GFC,Starvation,Religious Wars,Terrorism,Immigration and corruption at all levels of society.
    It seems we are really struggling to get any of these issues over the line, so we get lost on climate change. My guess is that we need a much more advanced level of mankind to operate up to 90% better on all those issues listed above before we can get too entrenched with climate change issues, especially where it is wide open as to the answers, let alone diagnosing the problem. How can all the “do gooders” in our social system prioritise climate change over these issues.

    2 to 3 generations and we will probably be able to get the technology right, carbon will be a non-issue as we exhaust our fossil fuels, nuclear will be much safer, solar a lot cheaper. People will may have integrated and evolved to a level of non violence and Parramatta will again be a force in Rugby League. Eye Ball will have been reborn as a woman and will be looking to take in homeless prostitutes. YES there is a lot more for us to do than get lost in climate change.
    Developing a food bowl and drought proofing our farming areas would be a good start.
    I could argue a mining levy directly related to such a project would add back what we are taking. There is the real weakness in the sysytem, we keep taking and not giving back. Creating a carbon tax gives nothing back, other than create a further avenue of finance for governments that are totally lost on being politically correct and producing nothing.
    Evolution does not have to mean growing stonger lungs, we also need to grow bigger hearts. In our politicians they need to create a better way to further there career paths than being politically expedient!and start thinking about a future that matters. I will guarantee in their life times they will never see an ounce of result in whatever endeavours we undertake to change climate matters. BUT they will if they create foodbowls to feed the world!

  2. May 30, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    A worthy answer – all extremely relevant and on topic – well almost … YODA wisdom at its very best – oh where do you go when you talk all that other jibber-jabber …

  3. tom hardy
    June 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Its about time our Govt. did something useful , all this pie in the sky theory about climate change to simply collect taxes by a Govt. that has no idea whatsoever about budgetting. There are so many scientists refuting the facts as outlined to the Australian public about the necessity of a carbon tax that the whole topic is doubtful to say the least.. In a time where Australia could be absolutely booming we are being dragged down by a plummeting labour govt and its policies and people are beginning to struggle to make ends meet . All we are getting from this very high taxing govt. are threats in every direction ,creating uncertainty in the market place generally . Carbon tax will simply be another tax on all people eventually ,as well as uncertainty for industrials and unemployment. Australia currently exports approx. 330 million tons of coal per year , how much co2 does this represent when Australia itself is manufacturing 1.8% of the worlds carbon dioxide . Stupid hypocrisy nothing less than a tax grab . A programme of tree planting would be simpler and everyone would be better off. Information given to Australians relating to climate change comes from the Dept.Of Climate Change of which nearly all of the scientists are employed by the Govt. and are paid to create panic and urgency in the face of pending doom relating to climate change forecasts.

  4. Tony
    June 25, 2011 at 11:26 am

    My brother started working for Australian Intelligence (Foreign Affairs) some 15 years ago and he has never been able to talk about his work due to it’s sensitive nature. He has only ever said one thing to me and that is 90% of what the government tell Australians is panipulated or wrong and he has even worked in the golf balls at Alice Springs. I asked my brother what he thought about what Gillard was peddling on the climate tax. He said were her lips moving!

    June 25, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Does Everyone know that 10% of the carbon tax that Gillard is forcing on us is going to the UN. Greg Combet signed an agreement with the un next year. The UN wants every country to give them 10% so they can give it to other countries to help with their costs of climate change. So $1 100 000 000 of our money is going to the UN for no reason. Sorry I guess we have to keep paying for those bullshit climate reports. If you see gillard crossing the road – no one will convict you.

  6. phen375
    February 9, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Great blog here! Also your web site so much up fast!

    What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate link for your host?
    I wish my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: