'Since its introduction on 1 July 2012, the Australian carbon tax has burdened hard-working Australians with unnecessary increases in their cost of living.

It has now been revealed that more than 80% of Australian small business are now negatively affected because of the carbon tax.

In a survey of more than 215 Australian small businesses conducted by the Australian Retailers Association, it was revealed that 80 percent of retailers believe that their business has been negatively impacted since the introduction of the carbon and that 60 percent report consumers have spent less since carbon pricing was introduced.

Participants of the survey were asked a variety of questions that gauged their sentiments and experiences of doing business in Australia since the carbon tax was introduced.

It was revealed that small businesses in Australia believe that the carbon tax has impacted them in the following ways:

• It has added a total cost of approx $4000 per year in operating expenses.
• Utility bills have increased, especially electricity (power costs up 40% since July).
• Higher delivery costs for stock and those that used to deliver for free now charge a freight fee.
• Increased cost of products and Increased expenses.
• Supplier and input costs have risen exponentially.
• Considering that Australian small businesses employ more that 47% of Australians, the director of the Australian Retailers Association, Russell Zimmerman, expressed his concerns at the impact the Australian carbon tax is having on Australian small business. He was quoted as saying that:

The introduction of carbon pricing was a massive legislative change for small business and one which has had a significant impact. In a climate of already suppressed retail spending, retailers are taking the hit of the carbon tax as consumers bypass the stores to pay household bills
The economic pain that the Australian carbon tax is causing small businesses has become evident.

Dairy farmers are now forced to absorb the costs associated with the carbon tax, many are now forced to shut-down their farms.

Vegetable Growers are now facing hardship because of the carbon tax. A Queensland vegetable grower, John Brent, says his power bill for one-quarter has already risen by over 10 per cent.

A small regional carrier known as REX says its profits are being dragged down by the Federal Government’s price on carbon.

The Australian Retailers Association is now calling on the Australian government to begin compensating small businesses for their losses and to start providing them with more information about how to deal with the costs associated with the carbon tax.

The good news is that the unpopularity of the Australian carbon tax is greater than it has ever been. A poll conducted by the Minerals Council of Australia has revealed that 58 percent of Australians now disapprove of the carbon tax, up from 54 per cent in February 2012.

The unpopularity of carbon taxes and the negative impact they have on the economies they infest should be enough to discourage other governments from falling for the same Globalist lies.

Unfortunately, I doubt Australia will be the last country to introduce a carbon tax.'

Source: www.theglobalistreport.com/carbon-tax-da...ng-small-businesses/

People who disagree with nonsense like carbon taxes are increasingly being branded "climate change deniers".

If they get their way they will label anyone who doesnt take what they tell us at face value as 'mentally ill'

The denier tag is already thrown around in a big way in the land of Oz.

I know, I read an Australian blog about climate change deniers. Mainly because I enjoy winding myself up.

Apparently not wanting to eat GM food and drink fluoridated is all part of the denier's mindset. I hope they choke on their wind turbines and then get run over by a Prius.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Yeah they do a good job of it in Oz.

For example if you speak out against the 'carbon tax' and are a business , which is really the first stages of a carbon trading system run by the big banks, you can be fined up to 1 million dollars apparently.

And a good job of putting people in boxes.. again if you speak out it means you must be pro-right, love Rupert Murdoch and Tony Abbott, and all that crap.

novum wrote:
Guevarista used the term 'denier' on this very forum

andyh wrote:
He should go be the mail boy at NM Rothschild bank, and help handle all the carbon trading paperwork.




another inevitable...

GM Holden and Ford: End of the road in Australia

'THE cars that have shaped – and divided – a nation over more than three decades are headed for the big carpark in the sky.

The Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore are almost certain to be phased out within months of each other at the end of 2016'


Read more: www.news.com.au/news/holden-ford-end-of-...305476#ixzz2I88IgeF9

How about this for f*cked up...

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/...twice-global-warming

'Soot from burned wood and diesel exhausts may have twice the impact on global warming than previously thought, according to a new study published on Tuesday.

The "black carbon" is said to be the second most important man-made agent of climate change.'

So surely this must mean that soot is greater than CO2 and second only to water vapour which is scientifically admitted to be the greatest greenhouse gas and also does have man made emissions right?......ummm nope look what they go on to say...

'Huge quantities of man-made soot enter the atmosphere every year. Around 7.5m tonnes was released in 2000 alone, according to estimates. It has a greenhouse effect two-thirds that of carbon dioxide, and greater than methane'

So they are now saying that it has a greater effect than methane IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND IN OUR MSM RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR VERY EYES...and yet...

' CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.'

Source EPA.

'CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than methane' Source Wikipedia.

'"A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. ...

...Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide." (Geoffrey Lean)'

' One such influence on climate is caused by tiny particles called “aerosols” (not to be confused with aerosol spray cans). For example, the burning of coal produces emissions of sulfur-containing compounds. These compounds form “sulfate aerosol” particles, which reflect some of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth, causing a cooling influence at the surface. Sulfate aerosols also tend to make clouds more efficient at reflecting sunlight, causing an additional indirect cooling effect. Another type of aerosol, often referred to as soot or black carbon, absorbs incoming sunlight and traps heat in the atmosphere. Thus, depending on their type, aerosols can either mask or increase the warming caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases.13 On a globally averaged basis, the sum of these aerosol effects offsets some of the warming caused by heat-trapping gases.10'

^ OMFG LOOOOLLL!!!!!

Is it not obvious yet that these guys are just full of shit?

andyh wrote:
Well, you know yourself that obvious aint so obvious to many people unfortunately.

However, i saw today that a recent poll said 54% of Australians are against the 'carbon tax' ... it climbed from the last poll.

And even if we did entertain the thought that what is put out there by IPCC et al is all true (as that vid im going to post below kind of does) ... then what a great idea they came up with to fix it... get the likes of Goldman to control carbon trading markets, yes that will solve pollution problems!

I believe carbon taxes should be charged to oil companies only. People constantly complain about taxes and they are usually badly directed, but i honestly believe carbon taxes are a necessity.

Only a selfish idiot would consider a careful use of limited resources a "scam". But careful use of limited resouces is not what cap and trade is, is it?

And cap & trade is, in so many ways, a scam.

What is needed is a grand rethink, or rather a retreat from the suicidal drive towards "growth" (what a misnomer).

I see two problems: consumerism as a means to enslave (which is fkt up botth in terms of freedom and in terms of resource management)

And a humanism which has become human-supremacism bordering on megalomnia.

Even if, and IF, we expand across the infinite universe and all of its inifinite resources, with all that science and technoogy promiises in the most extemely utopian super optomistic mindeset, we will STILL be limited by our capacity to control and manage them.

Even when your business is in boom, does one have to be careful of over-stretching.

Wishfil thinking is neither hope nor true optimism.

There is also prudence. And any good manager knows the lessons of imprudence.

As for the headline: it is a semantic trick: one could also read that 20% of small businesses have been completely unaffacted by these laws.

I am in NO WAY supporting this corporation backed BS.

But let us not go down the road of the proverbial Ostircj.

Whether or not you believe CO2 emissions are fkn the planet up (dunno myself yet) there is stilll a MASSIVE prblem with waste and dumping in liquids, solids and gasses into the enviroment.

For FS do not think that had the big corporations not had this with which to quash small businesses they would somehow be deprived of their stick to beat them with.

They would find a way regardless.

Careful, please.

let us not entertain the other monster: big oil.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Ask Guevarista is he bothers to come back
He probably thinks its a good idea along with how lovely trustworthy politicians will spend it to help you.

mikey mikey wrote:
Absolutely true.
But no-one gives a shit about real pollution because now CO2 is a pollutant.

folly

All of it.

Even a farmer knows to fallow

I am giving up

Interesting article Andy. It was only last year that I was volunteering for my local Transition Town's eco-open homes event. At that time, burning wood or those pellet jobbies for fuel was considered to be carbon neutral. More people are using wood for heating and hot water now and that's partly to do with fuel costs, so could there be a plan to slap a stealth tax on that too?

Cars do cause a lot of pollution and the oil industry is inherently unethical, so I'n going to argue with that. Wood on the other hand, is renewable and sustainable. If it's from a local source it's ecologically sound and more ethical than non renewable energy.

Apparently diesel cars kill!
www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2193017/go...air-pollution-crisis
I've always come home with black bogeys when I've been to London, so I think there's more than a grain of truth in this.

I think people have a right to have their own opinion and if they don't believe in man made climate change then that's fine. People can think what they like.

Plastic bags littered my streets when I grew up and CFCs cuded my skies as a boy.

And you talk of rights.

As I said: giving up

What should we do then? Police people's opinions?

mikey mikey wrote:
Like I said, no-one wants to know about those pollutants now.
CO2 is everything.
Despite the FACT that plants need it to grow....

andyh wrote:
It's scarey, because you can tip anything down your drain. Have you seen all the nasties that you get in toiletries and household cleaning products?

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Absolutely yep.
But pollution is now ALL about CO2.
Anything else is irrelevant.