Will carbon tax affect the price of cruising

[Scurvy Dog]

I think I'll just stowaway on a cruise ship and bury my head in the sand!!!! (Come to think of it that would be hard to do on a ship! :D)

 

Maybe if the ship had a sandpit it would work :D

[Australian family]

Thats very interesting. We are hearing the same sort of comments about the Gold Coast too.

Perhaps everyone is staying home, paying off their huge mortgages to the banks so they dont lose their houses:eek:

 

That is right, people are not spending money. People are also travelling overseas because our dollar is so high. Inbound tourist numbers are also down.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

We don't have a mortgage, but are wary of spending, because of the enormous electricity, water, and petrol price rises in Qld. The trouble is I don't believe any politicians of present times are capable of fixing things. :mad:

I think I'll just stowaway on a cruise ship and bury my head in the sand!!!! (Come to think of it that would be hard to do on a ship! :D)

 

 

Same here, we are mortgage free , which has enabled us to cruise, but are facing ever increasing costs . We have many friends , both here and in Australia who are looking twice at their expensive homes and are wanting to downscale, but even the costs associated with all of that , are high enough these days to put people off.

I dread getting the House Insurance renewal bill this year, as they are set to skyrocket:eek:

[The_Big_M]

That is right, people are not spending money. People are also travelling overseas because our dollar is so high. Inbound tourist numbers are also down.

 

Very true... and the opposition's policies have indicated they are more likely to increase people buying overseas, and a reduction in tourists. They support a rising dollar by their argument against any mining taxes as they don't wish to reduce demand for resources.

[Australian family]

Very true... and the opposition's policies have indicated they are more likely to increase people buying overseas, and a reduction in tourists. They support a rising dollar by their argument against any mining taxes as they don't wish to reduce demand for resources.

 

Well what is the Gillard Govt doing to help things?

 

They are successfully slowing down our economy by taking away people's confidence so that business is badly affected, by people not spending, not building, and generally worried about their futures.

 

Australia had a strong economy and a surplus of money when Rudd came into power. What do we have now a weak economy and owe China masses of money (a deficit) But yes we have the Gillard memorial halls which they wasted far too much money on.

[The_Big_M]

Well what is the Gillard Govt doing to help things?

 

They previously boosted confidence in a number of ways that we were the most successful of the western economies mid-GFC.

 

Coming out and into the last election though, the opposition, in concert with parts of the media made spending an obsession, such that all anyone heard was to have a surplus. This emphasis will have a dampening effect on the economy, as well as the reduction in consumer confidence the opposition has been encouragaing with the impression we're all about to be rooned.

 

Australia had a strong economy and a surplus of money when Rudd came into power. What do we have now a weak economy and owe China masses of money (a deficit) But yes we have the Gillard memorial halls which they wasted far too much money on.

 

Yes, there was a surplus which you'd expect as there had been good times. That's what you do when times are great. It could have been a lot better in fact, but it was at least in surplus.

 

As the opposition even admitted when pressed, they would also have spent equally during the downturn (they claim - who knows?); they just say the spending would have been "better" - which is the easiest thing for anyone to say in hindsight.

 

Thus, we would have been in the same financial situation from either party. As for what was spent that's a moot point, but the Opposition certainly weren't coming up with better suggestions at the time, so I have my doubts. Certainly many school recipients were happy with the facilities they got. Was it perfect, no, but what government spending - including Liberal - is? (And what of anyone, including corporate spending is for that matter? Perfection's unattainable, so I compare on the realities of the situation.)

[Australian family]

They previously boosted confidence in a number of ways that we were the most successful of the western economies mid-GFC.

 

Coming out and into the last election though, the opposition, in concert with parts of the media made spending an obsession, such that all anyone heard was to have a surplus. This emphasis will have a dampening effect on the economy, as well as the reduction in consumer confidence the opposition has been encouragaing with the impression we're all about to be rooned.

 

 

 

Yes, there was a surplus which you'd expect as there had been good times. That's what you do when times are great. It could have been a lot better in fact, but it was at least in surplus.

 

As the opposition even admitted when pressed, they would also have spent equally during the downturn (they claim - who knows?); they just say the spending would have been "better" - which is the easiest thing for anyone to say in hindsight.

 

Thus, we would have been in the same financial situation from either party. As for what was spent that's a moot point, but the Opposition certainly weren't coming up with better suggestions at the time, so I have my doubts. Certainly many school recipients were happy with the facilities they got. Was it perfect, no, but what government spending - including Liberal - is? (And what of anyone, including corporate spending is for that matter? Perfection's unattainable, so I compare on the realities of the situation.)

 

Believe what you want, but we are worse off under this government. This government gives no incentive to people to get ahead. You must have been disappointed at the last NSW state election, but weren't they doing a great job in running NSW?

[Kiwi Kruzer]

Its a funny old world , when you think about it all.

Australia seems to be the only country that doesn't have a Carbon Tax.

but wait theres more...

now NZ has thought that we are the only ones that don't have a Capital Gains tax..

so guess what ....

the "pollies" now want to bring one in here , so we can catch up with you:eek:

 

Just imagine how many jobs that will create in Accountants offices to sort all that out:confused::mad:

[The_Big_M]

Believe what you want, but we are worse off under this government.

 

Pretty much same, same really. Change is slow given all the vested interests that are raising their voices. Given the lack of vision and poor prospects under the alternative though, it's the better option of the two.

 

This government gives no incentive to people to get ahead.

 

A government's for society, not for an individual 'getting ahead' of every other individual. The opposition gives no indication of having any ideas to improve society, or anything really. Their last efforts were pretty pathetic with taking away rights and freedoms. Plus they don't even know what they stand for, contradicting the few policies they present.

 

You must have been disappointed at the last NSW state election, but weren't they doing a great job in running NSW?

 

Nice attempt at generalising based on party politics, so of course completely wrong. Simply put, no they weren't. The problem here is both party in NSW state politics are poor in terms of policy and questionable in ethics. As many would be aware even relations between the federal and state divisions are bad given the poor operations of NSW Labor.

 

I'd love to see a party with good vision AND good principles. Unfortunately, some media - and many members of the public - put paid to that with concerns solely about their own short-term, private interests, which is of course the opposite of what government is for. If people had a more mature view towards improvements for the country there would be less of an issue.

[Australian family]

Pretty much same, same really. Change is slow given all the vested interests that are raising their voices. Given the lack of vision and poor prospects under the alternative though, it's the better option of the two.

 

 

 

A government's for society, not for an individual 'getting ahead' of every other individual. The opposition gives no indication of having any ideas to improve society, or anything really. Their last efforts were pretty pathetic with taking away rights and freedoms. Plus they don't even know what they stand for, contradicting the few policies they present.

 

 

 

Nice attempt at generalising based on party politics, so of course completely wrong. Simply put, no they weren't. The problem here is both party in NSW state politics are poor in terms of policy and questionable in ethics. As many would be aware even relations between the federal and state divisions are bad given the poor operations of NSW Labor.

 

I'd love to see a party with good vision AND good principles. Unfortunately, some media - and many members of the public - put paid to that with concerns solely about their own short-term, private interests, which is of course the opposite of what government is for. If people had a more mature view towards improvements for the country there would be less of an issue.

 

The voters will determine at the next election who gets in, and Gillard aren't looking good.

[Itachi]

One thing this carbon tax is guaranteed to do is slow the economy right down, as it already has. Businesses are really hurting, as people aren't spending money because of what Gillard (who lied said there wouldn't be a carbon tax before the election), Wong & Brown want us to have.

 

Can you please substantiate such claims with credible sources? GDP has been positive and negating impact of bad weather early this year, would continue to rise. We currently have the one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world...

[The_Big_M]

The voters will determine at the next election who gets in, and Gillard aren't looking good.

 

I'm not sure why you wrote that, as it doesn't reply to anything that I said which you quoted.

 

If you want to talk about Abbott getting in though, aside from his lack of policies, his shocking effort at demanding millions be spent on a referendum that he then refused to honour himself says volumes about his concern for what the populace think i.e. none!

 

I get the impression the only thing he stands for is a petulant belief that he should be in government and do whatever he likes. That would be scary.

[Australian family]

I'm not sure why you wrote that, as it doesn't reply to anything that I said which you quoted.

 

If you want to talk about Abbott getting in though, aside from his lack of policies, his shocking effort at demanding millions be spent on a referendum that he then refused to honour himself says volumes about his concern for what the populace think i.e. none!

 

I get the impression the only thing he stands for is a petulant belief that he should be in government and do whatever he likes. That would be scary.

 

Is this the Gillard, Wong & Brown fan club!

[The_Big_M]

Is this the Gillard, Wong & Brown fan club!

 

That's nonsensical given what I've written, but since your replies are only ever one-liners that don't reply to what I write, and are just anti-Gillard/pro-Abbott, it's clear where your biases lie.

[thied]

interest rates will go down in the next three months

[thied]

go go priminster brown/ gillard go green and we will die, QLD is the 14 most costly place to live in the world.

 

if this new TAX gets in say good bye to Australia land of the free and and the way of life we have know for the last 100 years.

 

what a crock carbourn makes up .003 % of the world air.

 

ETS tax for dummies – regardless of your political persuasion.

Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

 

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.

Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. Its natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It's hard to imagine that Australia 's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

[thied]

How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.

The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.

[thied]

Before deleting this – make sure you read the last 2 paragraphs!!

 

This person certainly has the qualifications.

 

Climate Change!! Do read this.

 

 

 

 

 

Will the full truth only come out here after the carbon tax is passed?

 

 

 

Dr David Evans’ address in Perth, 23 March 2011.

 

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

 

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence, I was once an alarmist, but I am now a sceptic.

 

Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying.

 

This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

 

Let’s set a few things straight.

 

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.

 

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is notwhether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

 

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

 

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

 

The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

 

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

 

I'll bet you didn't know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you've never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

 

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.

 

During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

 

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

 

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — this just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

 

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampeningthe warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

 

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise - surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

 

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

 

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

 

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewerage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site,sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

 

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

 

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.

 

So it’s a question of trust.

[room010]

Hard as it is not to launch into a political tirade on this I will answer the OP's original question. OF COURSE the cruise companies will pass on their CO2 tax impost to the consumers, ie, us. So will all the other big businesses. The whole thing is good, old fashioned socialist redistribution of wealth dogma dressed up as 'environmentalism'.

 

Most people I talk to are not usually very 'political' about anything but this issue is generating a lot of genuine anger about what we seem helpless to prevent. I have a wide circle of friends, colleagues and acquaintances and not one of them has said they think the CO2 tax is a Good Thing backed up by credible science. Not One.

 

Please don't suggest I write to my Federal MP about this - he's a Greenie :o so I'm wasting my time.

[yatchet]

No one really knows the answer to the Climate Change thing.

 

So why get so worked up about something that it seems now, won't really cost the average person much at all, if anything.

 

The biggest impost of all was the Liberals GST, 10% on EVERYTHING, why wasn't there such a public outcry then.:mad:

[Australian family]

No one really knows the answer to the Climate Change thing.

 

So why get so worked up about something that it seems now, won't really cost the average person much at all, if anything.

 

The biggest impost of all was the Liberals GST, 10% on EVERYTHING, why wasn't there such a public outcry then.:mad:

 

GST doesn't apply to everything. Study your docket next time you go grocery shopping.

 

In our business every time I complete a BAS statement, we have GST Free sales.

[yatchet]

GST doesn't apply to everything. Study your docket next time you go grocery shopping.

 

In our business every time I complete a BAS statement, we have GST Free sales.

Sorry, forgot about fresh fruit and veges.

 

As your in business, explains your dislike of the present government and no doubt supporter of 'work choices', say no more.

[Itachi]

GST doesn't apply to everything. Study your docket next time you go grocery shopping.

 

In our business every time I complete a BAS statement, we have GST Free sales.

 

Sorry, there are literally 3 things - bread (plain), milk (unflavoured) and what else? lol

[Sandielle]

Sorry, there are literally 3 things - bread (plain), milk (unflavoured) and what else? lol

 

What?...the never ever GST? LOL. It also affects everything in one way or another.

[Australian family]

Sorry, forgot about fresh fruit and veges.

 

As your in business, explains your dislike of the present government and no doubt supporter of 'work choices', say no more.

 

No we don't employ staff.