“Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”

Här kommer ytterligare en utmärkt genomgång om varför handeln med utsläppsrätter är totalt ekonomiskt vansinne. I det här fallet är det en genomgång (inför the Garnaut Climate Change Review) varför Australien INTE skall inför detta system som den nuvarande regeringen vill införa (även om man har fått lite ”kalla fötter”).

”If warming is either less pronounced than some current forecasts predict or if emissions reductions have limited effect in moderating future temperature rise . . . a severe global emissions-reduction policy through emissions trading could turn out to be the costliest public policy mistake in human history, with the costs vastly exceeding the benefits.”

 Kenneth Green, Steven Hayward and Kevin Hasset:

”Climate Change: Caps vs Taxes”, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Environmental, Policy Outlook, 2007, Issue 2.

 Ett citat:

”There are some ideas that are so wrong that only a very intelligent

person could believe them.”


George Orwell.


Se även mina tidigare inlägg I frågan bl.a.:

Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!Clearing out the environmental fogA CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!,   EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,

Analysen finns här:


Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

•1.    Where is the Cost Benefit Analysis?

The introduction of a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will cause huge costs and dislocations to the Australian economy and the Australian people. There is no question on this. Before any responsible expert could recommend the introduction of an ETS there must be a full independent due diligence followed by a complete cost-benefit analysis.


Many definite costs can be readily identified and include:

  • The large upfront and ongoing cost of enquiries, consultants, new departments, administrative, regulatory and compliance staff.
  • The matching corporate costs of legal advice, compliance, collecting data, modifying computer models, preparing returns, recording emissions and credit inventories, auditing and obtaining and training new skills.
  • The bureaucratic cost of dismantling the patchwork of taxes, subsidies, mandated markets and pigmy Emissions Trading schemes already erected by the states.
  • Destruction of asset values as plants and facilities made unprofitable by the cost of emission permits or carbon taxes are prematurely scrapped or mothballed.
  • Negotiation and disputes about compensation for assets destroyed by the effective introduction of this tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – referred hereafter as ”carbon taxes”.
  • Misdirection of community savings via subsidies, taxes and mandatory market sharing into energy black holes such as ethanol and solar power.
  • Environmental damage caused by expansion of land devoted to bio-diesel production, new transmission lines and invasive solar panels and wind towers.
  • Increased costs to consumers of electricity, cement, transport and steel.
  • Food shortages and crises as food crops and farm land are diverted to ethanol production or taken over by sterile plantations of woody weeds whose sole justification is ”carbon credits”.
  • Loss of international competitiveness as Australia is forced to rely on more costly energy sources.
  • Losses and churning in the jobs market as jobs are lost, change, or move to different locations.
  • Increased welfare payouts to politically powerful minority groups within Australia.
  • International wealth transfers (via gifts of technology, payment for make-believe carbon offsets, exemptions from carbon taxes or direct foreign aid) which will penalise every

Australian citizen and taxpayer.

The costs are tangible, definite and very large. Carbon Sense strongly recommends that, before

any rash decisions are taken, the Productivity Commission is asked to quantify all of these





The claimed benefits include:

  • Reduction in man’s emissions of carbon dioxide.
  • Reduced global warming.

There is no credible evidence, however, of any real benefits whatsoever. There is:

  • No proof that significant reduction in man’s emissions is likely or possible without causing widespread hardship, hunger, poverty and political turmoil.
  • No proof that CO2 controls variations in world temperature. In fact there is significant emerging and long standing evidence that it does not.
  • No proof that Cap and Trade schemes or carbon taxes will reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and no proof that any such reduction could have any measurable effect on future world temperature.
  • No assurance that a uniform scheme will be adopted by the whole world. In fact there is significant evidence that it will not.
  • No proof that there is any danger to life on earth from any feasible or likely increase in

CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

  • Significant evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a positive benefit to all life on earth and is likely to cause increased plant growth and greater ability of plants to withstand drought or extremes of temperature.


Unexpected nexpected Growth in Sahara Sahel.

”Ground surveys over time reveal that the quality of land in the Sahel has deteriorated

during the last 50 years – fewer trees and shrubs and thinner, less productive soils.

But satellite data since 1982 show areas where vegetation – natural and cultivated –

has increased more than expected from increases in rainfall.

This may be partly because

rising levels of carbon dioxide in the air have promoted plant growth,

which enhances the soil’s ability to hold water, leading in turn to more growth.”

National Geographic Magazine, April 2007


  • It is also clear that the whole world has benefited from the Global Warming that has taken place for the last 10,000 years and also clear that many people will benefit from resumption of this trend. As a cattleman in blizzard-wracked Colorado said recently:

”One more year of this global warming and we will all freeze to death.”

And another:

”The ground this morning is covered with white global warming.”


There are huge risks with an ETS. These include:

  • The risks of unintended consequences. We have already seen this where ”The Ethanol

Obsession” has diverted food crops to motor fuel, thus causing a world crisis in food

supply and prices. Similarly the ”Bolt to Bio-diesel” has caused great destruction of

native vegetation and added to the shortage of land available for food production.

  • The significant risk that the IPCC computer models are totally wrong in their forecasts

of accelerated Global Warming, and in fact the Global Cooling that started in 1998 and

accelerated in 2007 will continue.

  • This is not an idle speculation. See below:


”Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and nature are suspended?

”No, we do not.

”Can we expect relationships between the Sun’s activity and climate, that we can see in

data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years?

”With absolute certainty.

”In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that

demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030.

”It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain.

”It is a prediction of imminent cooling.”

David Archibald

Link to the full PDF text:

Klicka för att komma åt solar-cycle-24-implications-for-the-united-states-archibald.pdf


Additional cooling now would cause another large drop in food production and widespread

power shortages. Should that happen, the priests of global warming will be stoned from

their temples, and sun worshippers will take the stage. Orchardists will light fires under

their stressed trees to ward off frost damage and provide them with more carbon dioxide

plant food. Farmers in the cold countries will watch the monthly analyses of CO2 content in

the atmosphere as intently as Australian farmers now watch the SOI index. They will pray

that the trend does not turn down, as reduced CO2 will further stress their struggling and

frosted crops.

  • The risks that Australia and New Zealand (the bunny and the sheep), will be the only

ones in our region to place huge handicaps on our industries.

As stated correctly in the Garnaut Review ETS discussion paper:


”We (Australia) are a small emitter in absolute terms,

and cannot solve the climate change problems on our own”.


  • The risks of extreme fluctuations or collapse in the value of the carbon credits, followed

by the evaporation of all the artificial industry that Emissions Trading will create. (Once

the science or the weather makes it obvious that man does not and cannot control the

weather, this flimsy house of carbon credit cards will collapse. The reverberations will

be far greater than when the South Sea Bubble or the sub-prime boom collapsed.

  • The risks of foreign frauds if international carbon offsets are allowed.
  • The risk of sudden loss of political support. Any industry whose only assets are bits of

paper created by an Act of Parliament can disappear in one rowdy afternoon in a

subsequent Parliament.


As ”The Economist noted (15/3/07):

” Climate change is so wildly fashionable now that hardly anybody dares object to

measures designed to combat it. But as the costs of such policies rise, that may not

last. The more money governments spend on wasteful subsidies, the bigger the

backlash is likely to be, and the smaller the chance of sustaining the political will

needed to keep the world cool.”




Carbon Sense thus recommends that before any CO2 emissions reduction scheme of any sort is

introduced, the government should conduct due diligence and present a cost benefit analysis.

These should be prepared by independent experts and with the credibility that ASIC would

require of a corporation issuing a prospectus seeking billions of dollars from the public. This

would comprise:


  • A Royal Commission to report to the government on the Science of the cause and

effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This Inquiry should be conducted by two

Commissioners of high-level scientific distinction who have not been connected with

the IPCC process, plus an Independent Chairman. The Inquiry should have the power

and funding to initiate wide ranging scientific inquiries into all aspects of present

knowledge on climate and to take and consider evidence on climate change.


It seems unbelievable that the Garnaut Review Discussion Paper seems to believe that no matter

what the science may indicate in future, Australia will not modify its De-carbonisation proposals.

This is what it says:

”Because Australian action alone will be of little consequence to climate change impacts,

there seems no case for adjusting budgets and trajectories for new information and

developments of an economic or scientific kind”.

In other words, even if the science says that reducing man’s emissions of CO2 will have no effect

on future climate, AND even if the de-carbonisation program causes huge destruction in our

economy, we will stay with the world pack.


  • An analysis and estimated quantification of all likely costs associated with any proposed

emissions reduction proposal.

  • An assessment of the risks associated with any proposed action.


For another view on this subject by a well informed Australian see Appendix 1.


•2.     Minimising Harm – are there other Options?


The Australian government faces three main options for CO2 emission control:


Option 1 – Do nothing.

The costs of all de-carbonisation proposals are huge and certain, but there is no proof of any

benefits for Australia or mankind in attempting to curb CO2 emissions. It is clear that CO2

does not drive global temperature, clear that CO2 is not a pollutant, and clear that man’s

emissions are, at best, a minor factor in determining CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore the

obvious solution is to do nothing. This is the option recommended by the Carbon Sense



Option 2 – Introduce a carbon tax on CO2 emissions.

This has the benefits of being simple, predictable, and measurable and immediately allows

people to assess future investment proposals without the added risk in trying to forecast prices

in a speculation-driven emissions permit market. It also provides a more stable income stream

to governments allowing them to make more believable promises on what they will do with the

loot. Conclusion: Option 2 is preferred to Option 3.


Option 3. – Bet the House and introduce a full Cap and Trade Scheme.

This silly proposal would create a huge artificial ”industry”, with make-believe paper assets

and a parasitic speculative and regulatory empire draining savings and assets from taxpayers,

shareholders, consumers and employees. This option is preferred by politicians because it is

politically more acceptable, it is easier to disguise its real effects and it delivers them more

power. It also allows the growth of a brotherhood of vested interests who will lobby for

maintenance of the permit system right into the next Ice Age (and long after everyone except Al

Gore has ceased believing that CO2 controls global temperature). Under the magic of

emissions trading, governments sell bits of paper for real money, traders play profitable games

trading these chips, and if the people complain about the rising cost of everything, the

government can look innocent and blame ”wicked speculators in the carbon market”.

The Carbon Sense Coalition is totally opposed to this Option, and thus is reluctant to give any

advice on how to design one – we will not help weave a more comfortable hangman’s noose.

We will however provide more comments on topics requested which will provide even more

reasons for abandoning this costly, unstable and un-necessary speculation with all of our




Carbon Sense recommends the ”Do Nothing” option on all de-carbonisation proposals. In a

ranking of all options being considered, the Carbon Sense Coalition would rank Cap and Trade


(See also Appendix 2. Even the IMF has recognised the severe disadvantages of Emissions Trading and the

cynical reasons that governments prefer them to a simple definite tax.

And Appendix 3 where even the ever-so-green Kiwi’s are having second thoughts:


”The Chambers of Commerce has some straightforward advice for MPs

considering the emissions trading scheme legislation: Throw it out.”


3. Supporting Documents

Carbon Sense has already made known its views on the lack of evidence or proof that manmade

CO2 has caused or will cause dangerous global warming, and the dangers of costly and

perverse consequences of precipitate legislative action on de-carbonisation. These include:


1 A submission to the Garnaut Review, ”The Sky is not Falling”, which recommends that

no action be taken on any de-carbonisation proposals until a Royal Commission is held

on the Science of Global Warming:

Klicka för att komma åt garnaut-submission.pdf


2 A specific proposal from a group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and

scientists to set up such a Royal Commission (the ANZIG Enquiry):



3 A Submission to the Queensland Government, ”Look before you Leap”, on their

Proposed Energy and Climate Policies. In it, The Carbon Sense Coalition accuses the

Queensland Government of proposing draconian policies which will have no effect

whatsoever on global temperature, but will, if pursued, do tremendous damage to most


Klicka för att komma åt look.pdf


4 A submission to The Garnaut Review, on reporting, ”Keep it Simple, Stupid”, which

recommends that if any reporting system is mandated, it should be the very simplest



5 A submission to The Garnaut Review, on low emission options, ”The Climate is

Changing, naturally”, which concludes that there are no near term ”low emissions”

energy options (apart from politically in-correct nuclear power) to replace coal and oil

for electricity and motor vehicles.



The above reports should be treated as part of and complementary to this submission.

•4.     The International Scene – more UN scams?

The one-world master planners in the UN see the massive money and patronage power that

would flow their way if they can convince the western world (mainly America) to be part of a

world wide scheme for managing carbon emissions, trading emission rights and facilitating a

massive transfer of western wealth via the UN to favoured third world dictatorships. We have

already seen how ”Oil for Food” was milked by the UN. Trading emission credits allows even

greater scope for fraud on western taxpayers and consumers.


Moreover, the only international agreement with a chance of receiving support of the Asian

giants and the third world is one based on equalising emissions of CO2 per person. This

means equalising living standards per person. Such a policy will necessitate massive

transfers of wealth from rich sparsely populated countries like Australia to heavily populated

poor countries like Bangladesh. Is this what the Australian people and unions wish to happen?




The Carbon Sense Coalition is totally opposed to all international linkages and carbon credits.

Taxes collected in Australia should stay in Australia, and if we must buy permits, they too

should be bought in Australia. Allowing foreign emissions offset credits is an open invitation to

fraud and will merely result in massive transfer of western wealth to disappear into Swiss Bank

accounts in the third world.


•5.     Targets and Trajectories – ”Aim Low”.


The federal government has signalled that they aim to cut Australian CO2 emissions by 60% of

year 2000 levels by 2050 ie to a level just 40% of emissions in the year 2000.

We need to look at what these fairyland figures mean.

Let’s assume that the Australian population grows at 2% per year, and also assume that carbon

emissions per person have not changed since 2000 ie assume we use the same carbon energy,

food, transport, cement and steel now, per person, as we did in 2000. (In fact we use more, but

let’s not be accused of exaggeration.)


Assume that the index of Australia’s total population and of Australia’s total emissions were

both 100 in the year 2000. Both would have risen (at 2% per year) to 117 by now, 2008.

Does anyone seriously believe we can or should try to cut emissions per person to 40 by 2050 –

an absolute cut of 66% from current levels? Can anyone imagine we have the resources, the

capital, the technology or the persistent death wish to close, park up or capture and bury all

emissions from two out of every three cement plants, smelters, diesel trucks, trains, ships,

planes, earth moving equipment and coal burning power stations in just forty years?


Moreover, the Australian population index will have risen to 269 by 2050 (from100 in 2000).

This means that emissions per person would need to fall from an index of 100 in 2008 to 15 in

2050 – ie a cut of 85% in emissions per person. Does anyone believe we have the technology,

or the capital resources to eliminate or bury 85% of each person’s CO2 emissions by 2050?

(Even if that were sensible or desirable to do.)


Carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises a tiny 0.0386% of the atmosphere.

CO2 comprises a minute 3-4% of all greenhouse gases.

Man’s annual emissions total just 0.09% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Therefore 100% of man’s annual emissions of CO2

would take the CO2 content from 0.0386% to 0.0389%.

Does anyone seriously believe this tiny mass of a colourless gas

can control radiation and temperature?


CO2 emissions, perhaps more than any other index, measure economic growth and human

welfare. To cut emissions by this massive amount cannot be achieved except by:

  • A fall in living standards far more massive than we saw in the great depression (where emissions fell by about 30%), OR
  • A reduction in population (no one yet talks about the Pol Pot formula), OR
  • An unheard of revolution in technology, requiring scientific breakthroughs, engineering achievements and capital spending on a scale never before seen.

Politicians cannot force things up, except by sacrificing something else. Their only effective

weapons are:

  • prohibition (eg thou shalt not drive private cars more than 20km from your home without a permit),
  • confiscation and transfer (eg taxes on bad guys and subsidies for good guys),
  • regulation (eg your emissions shalt not exceed X per person per Greenhouse reporting month) AND/OR
  • delay (eg you must get 42 separate permits and authorities from local, state, federal and aboriginal authorities and conduct extensive public consultations before you can proceed to disturb one sod of soil).


All of this says clearly, that unless we derail this global warming train, it will cause a blow-out

in the cost of living for the older generation, reduce earnings and shrink nest eggs for their

children and destroy job prospects for their grandchildren.

Benny Peiser likens the current climate change debate in the UK to a runaway train:


”I personally think there’s very little you can do about this kind of anxiety,” he says. ”I

don’t think you can stop the train. You can’t even slow it down.

”But, just like in the movies, the train will eventually crash into the buffers. And then

people will realise that perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and find a

different approach.




Even if the Australian government craves another standing ovation on the IPCC stage, and thus

announces drastic long term cuts, Carbon Sense recommends that the trajectory of future cuts is

so very, very slow, that not too much harm is done before ”Global Cooling” or ”World

Depression” becomes the new scare, and all this rot is quietly forgotten.

And we should stop referring to baseline dates far back in history (this silly practice of

backdating start dates came about when the Germans and Russians scammed the rest of the

Kyoto bunnies by choosing dates that they knew were high points and they could thus benefit


from falls in emissions that had already occurred in the economic collapses in East Germany

after reunification and in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.)


•6.     Coverage- ”One Gas, No Exceptions”


Firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant so it should not be classed as a pollutant or included with other

noxious gases and chemicals such as nitrous oxide etc. These can be adequately and properly

controlled via pollution controls – they have no place in carbon emission schemes.


Secondly, methane is also a totally natural gas and oxidises or burns quickly to the other

greenhouse gases, CO2 and water. Methane’s emissions should thus be equated to CO2 on the

basis of its carbon content. This is the simplest, cheapest option.

What about industry coverage and exemptions?


Governments love complex schemes with all sorts of exemptions and concessions. That

increases their arbitrary power and allows them the greatest scope for dispensing secret

patronage or vote buying.

But justice should be blind. Every de-carbonisation proposal should apply to all industries and

activities that have net emissions of CO2 and there should be no opportunities for overseas

carbon credit scams – if we must do anything, it should be simple with no exemptions, and

confined to Australia.


7. Bribery, Compensation, Assistance, Payback

and Retrospective Taxation.


”Emissions control” will prove to be a fearsome Weapon of Mass Taxation. Whether it is a

carbon tax, or the sale of emission permits, the potential flow of dollars from consumers and

shareholders to the government will be massive, and like the Mississippi ”it will just keep

rolling along”


This is like giving a hand grenade to a baby – nothing is more subversive to industry and

innovation than a government with bags of money.


Firstly, far too much innovative energy in Australia will be devoted to submissions, suggestions

and applications for a share in this cornucopia of conscripted wealth.

Secondly, what should the government do with it that minimises damage and waste, maximises

future benefits and displays some justice?


Every discussion on the matter is prefaced with the compulsory mantra about ”compensating

the lower income people”. By definition, we will always have lower income people, and they

will always be the most numerous group in the population. Therefore they, more than any other

group in the community, have by their votes sanctioned the construction of the very taxation

machine that will soon oppress them. If they want relief from carbon tax oppression, the

solution is in their hands: eject every politician who voted for it. Compensating some

consumers for cost increases caused by taxes they voted for is not good energy policy – it is

vote buying or social engineering.


Many silly interventionist proposals are also rationalised by the so called need ”to correct

market failures.”


The whole aim of whatever emissions control mechanism is introduced is to induce people to

use solar not coal, bicycles not cars, muscles not electricity, and mud bricks not cement. The

market way is to tax carbon so that the price of all the prohibited items goes up, the market

works and people buy less of them. So why on earth would you blunt the market signals by

payments to consumers, thus preventing the market from working for a large segment of the

population? If their welfare is the concern, do not introduce the tax in the first place and save

on all the transfer fees on the tax/welfare merry-go-round.


One powerful lobby who will fight to get their snouts into the tax trough will be the alternative

energy people with all sorts of free energy or perpetual motion schemes that just require an odd

million dollars or two for research and development. If the idea is that good, why does it need

corporate welfare support?


Every non-carbon method of producing energy or goods will get a relative subsidy via the

carbon tax. That should be the end of the subsidies. That is the market solution, and we may be

surprised what discoveries will emerge once people realise that no government money is

available and they will have to use their own assets, brains and ingenuity.


The same argument applies to government research. Allow full tax deductions for all private

sector research, and release all the people and facilities now coasting comfortably in well

manicured government hi-tech parks in every capital city. Decentralise research and you may

be surprised how ingenious Australians really are.

The final claimants for a share in carbon tax revenue are those people whose assets and

business will be destroyed by the tax.


Unless the government allows power companies to pass on most of the carbon tax by raising

electricity prices (an unlikely event) every coal fired power station will immediately decline in

value once carbon taxes are introduced. The very marginal or old ones may close very quickly.

Others will have the working lives of their assets reduced (unless the alarmists are thrown out

of parliament soon). Unless these people are compensated for these dramatic losses, where is

the capital coming from to build new power stations or retrofit old ones?


Moreover, to achieve the massive cuts in emissions required from our vehicle fleet will require

a massive and unbelievable revolution from diesel and petrol to nuclear powered electric or

hydrogen vehicles. Should this unlikely event happen, who pays for all the trains, road vehicles

and other engines made obsolete by a politician’s pen? And who provides the capital for the

new fleet of sailing clippers and hydrogen powered air ships? Or finds a new way to make

cement and steel?


How to compensate? The simplest solution is to not destroy perfectly good assets in the first



The next solution is to totally exempt all current assets and operations from this carbon asset

confiscation ie all new power stations, cement plants, steel mills, bulk carriers, diesel trains and

air-liners will need a permit or pay the tax, but there will be no retrospective carbon taxation on

existing assets.


The next solution is to pay cash compensation to those who have suffered loss in asset value.

This is a Pandora’s Box which if opened, will lead to special deals, haggling, legal challenges,

disputes over valuations and models, fraud, corruption and the chance for politicians to indulge

their propensity to discriminate on the basis of their value judgments, prejudices or political


This box should be left closed.


8The Carbon Bank.


In all of this stuff, a couple of things are certain.

Firstly, carbon emissions control will have no beneficial effect on climate but will bring huge



This means, they will inevitably be repealed. This also means that the value of Emissions

Permits, Carbon Credits and all the hot air businesses erected upon them will one day collapse

and all value will disappear like CO2 into a clear blue sky.

Therefore, taxpayers (via the government) should not be forced to bet more of the future on this



If we are so silly as to proceed on this risky and costly path, governments must define Emission

Permits and Carbon Credits, record who holds them, and somehow minimise the blatant fraud

that will arise from creation and trade in them. They should have nothing to do with setting up

or controlling markets, prices, exchanges or banks, apart from prosecuting fraud, deception and

misleading conduct. They must run the emissions share registry, but not the emissions

commodity exchange or the emission credits bank.


The green push has gone mad


ONLY George Orwell could have invented – and named – the British Government’s

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the

latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the

poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so.


It says enough that one car tank of bio-petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African

for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for

conversion into bio-fuel. United Nations food expert Jean Ziegler screamed for it to stop:

”Children are dying … It is a crime.”

Simon Jenkins, ”The Guardian”

April 17, 2008


9. Conclusions – the Great Schism.


There is developing a great schism in the Global Warming Debate.

On the one hand, the science and the weather trends are indicating that CO2 is not driving

global temperature and that CO2 is a valuable plant fertiliser, not a pollutant.

In addition, economic trends and analyses are indicating the huge cost and unintended

consequences that will arise from introduction of cap and trade or carbon tax schemes.

But on the other hand, most politicians and vested interests are becoming increasingly shrill in

their demands that the western world should rush into totally unproven schemes that will:


  • Create shortages and soaring prices for food, electricity, transport, steel and manufactured products,
  • Trigger international political turmoil,
  • Crystallize immediate capital losses for many shareholders AND
  • Cause job losses for employees in many productive enterprises.

There is no urgency to commit economic suicide. The Carbon Sense Coalition urges the


Garnaut Review to recommend a full scientific and economic assessment of the risks, costs and

benefits before forcing Australians down this dark alley.

The Carbon Sense Coalition is happy to appear before the review or answer questions on the

questions posed by this Submission or the Issues paper.

Authorised by:


Viv Forbes BSc App, FAIMM, FSIA


The Carbon Sense Coalition

MS 23, Rosewood, Qld 4340



Phone 07 5464 0533


This submission was prepared by individual members of the Carbon Sense Coalition on their own initiative

with no encouragement or financial support from any other groups or individuals.


”There are some ideas that are so wrong that only a very intelligent

person could believe them.”

George Orwell.


Etiketter: , ,

4 svar to ““Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation””

  1. Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’ « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] plan ‘to cost business $22bn’ Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg “Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation” kommer här kompletterande uppgifter om de gigantiska kostnader det skulle med för den […]

  2. “Emissions Trading – A Weapon Of Mass Taxation” | barretworthy Says:

    […] read more […]

  3. “Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,  “Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way,  Don’t bother with emissions trading […]

  4. The perfect “Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,  “Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way,  Don’t bother with emissions trading […]


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: