Comments on: ‘An exercise in revisionism’: Crikey readers correct the record on the 2009 CPRS

By: Hoojakafoopy

Hoojakafoopy — Sun, 08 Sep 2024 01:45:21 +0000

In reply to David W. In 2013 the Australian electorate was under the spell of News Corpse, Nein… have we woken up yet..?

By: Elisa M

Elisa M — Sat, 07 Sep 2024 02:05:43 +0000

Glad to see that most readers are aware that Labor’s „Miss, miss, it was the Greens!” is just another bs story aimed at discrediting the rival Labor’s afraid of.
The author of the first comment needs help.

By: David W

David W — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 07:46:24 +0000

The Greens carbon tax/price was very effective – no argument. Labor under Gillard undertook to introduce it after the Greens held a gun to Gillard’s head – take it, or we won’t support your government after the 2010 election. Gillard had promised that no government she led would introduce a carbon price/tax, so she should have declined the Greens’ offer and called another election. To top it off the Greens carbon price/tax was so good that Australia voted to have it repealed by the Abbott government in 2013. Perhaps Labor were aware of the contentious nature of the Greens’ excellent carbon tax/price way back in 2009…..

By: Michael B

Michael B — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 05:15:59 +0000

The CPRS was a junk policy, and just like today’s alp policies, it was designed to protect the big polluters and penalise smaller businesses and the people. It didn’t deserve to see the light of day, so good on the Greens for sending it down the gurgler.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 05:02:40 +0000

In reply to Gonggongche. And some of their own were indirectly not much help in reducing carbon emissions vs fossil fuel Koch modus operandi, by promoting 'sustainable population' (after expanded NOM spiked population) of ZPG and nativist Tanton Network channeling proxy white Australia; too easy.

By: Roger Clifton

Roger Clifton — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 04:59:10 +0000

Yes, a carbon tax leaves “few loopholes for polluters to weasel their way out of paying”. Even Ross Garnaut, who once said that a carbon tax is not flexible enough, now says that carbon should be taxed as it comes out of the ground. This way, it provides an audit for exactly how much fossil carbon is being released into the atmosphere. No doubt, fancy accounting will then duck and weave as to who has to pay and when, but the amount gets carved in stone.

By: M T K

M T K — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 04:19:12 +0000

In reply to Jack Robertson. You have been hypnotised by ALP 'aboutism'. CPRS was and a disaster for the environment and would've been a tragic win for the industry

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:51:11 +0000

In reply to Kimmo. Oh hey, we can say shit now!

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:14:46 +0000

In reply to Jack Robertson. Does endorsing fraud count as the sort of routine shit sandwich you say must be eaten?

By: Bolivar diGriz

Bolivar diGriz — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 23:58:22 +0000

In reply to Jack Robertson.

The CPRS ball the Greens had to play was to either vote yes or no to putting a price on carbon.

You say that as if the CPRS consisted entirely of legislation to put a price on carbon. There were a few more pages than that. Among other things, the CPRS would have legislated a licence to pollute. Pay a sum of money and keep pumping out increasing amounts of CO2.

It was the usual ALP tactic of making a token gesture aimed at a large problem and washing their hands while declaring “mission accomplished”. (The same as the ALP’s original “plan” to “fix” the housing crisis last year.) And the choice for The Greens was then as it is now: stick to their principles or give it all up in order to let the ALP pass legislation that has no other intended purpose than to provide a dot point for the junk mail they’ll stuff in our letterboxes during their next election campaign.