What's the difference? They are both direct contradictions to what was promised pre-election.

I don't understand your reasoning... they should be allowed to put obscene amounts of carbon into our atmosphere because they are a family business?

I do have to laugh at you copy/pasting from Andrew Bolt's blog comments, though.

Edited by notorganic: 28/3/2012 02:21:37 PM

the point is how are they to survive as a business when other trucking companies are not subjected to this tax?????

thought you might like that.....well no one is always wrong not even Gillard or andrew bolt...............

Edited by batfink: 28/3/2012 02:32:15 PM

pretty dure this is the difference

The federal government dumped similar national standards in December, saying the introduction of its carbon tax had made them redundant.

Sounds like something that should probably be investigated and found out, rather than drawing a conclusion that is likely to be completely wrong.

if we are to have a carbon tax or a price on carbon it should apply to everybody, should it not?????? we all pollute don't we???

lets talk hypothetically then.....

lets just say this does occur,do you think it would be fair on that company????

I agree, it should.

Do you know the specifics of why Nolan's is paying it and others are not? Do you know whether all other truck companies are not paying, or some?

Do you know the carbon outputs of all trucking companies in Australia and how Nolan's compares? Do you know whether Nolan's has been given sufficient opportunities to cut their carbon output or not?

Edited by notorganic: 28/3/2012 02:39:27 PM

That hypothetical isn't even worth entertaining, there are so many variables and possibilities before it even gets to that stage that's it's impossible to say whether it's fair or not.

c'mon matt.....if tghey copped the tax and a trucking company down the road 100k's didnt it has to be a disadvantage

Do you have any proof that's what's happening/going to happen?

no...we are talking hypothetically.......

Hypothetically speaking, do you think it's OK for Tony Abbott to hypothetically make huge slashes to essential public services such as health (mental & physical), education and other social programs to make up for the hypothetical $11b hole in their hypothetical budget that they wouldn't release to treasury for hypothetical costings?

have you got evidence of this.....

Significantly more than what you have of one innocent mom&pop trucking company being unfairly targeted by the big bad carbon tax, yes... but hey, we're just talking hypothetically here.

to be honest it wouldn't matter what the LNP budgeted for, because one things for sure, when they eventually gain office again there will be one huge shitfight to sort out once again........and like i keep saying the cycle continues...... why should he provide his costing to the treasury???? i wouldn't either....it's common knowledge that under a labor government the ranks of the public services swell to unprecedented levels with jobs for mates and favours are returned.....

Yeah, that would explain all the consolodation and budgetary stress between the DHS and Centrelink.

very convenient for Gillard that the list of 500 pollutors can't be revealed for privacy reasons....i only hope they all reveal themselves and identify the disadvange they have been placed i should it exist......

crazy policy the carbon tax.....should apply to everyone or nobody....not some politically motivated and targeted get even strategy..............

If you were any kind of public figure, I'm pretty sure this would be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. The burden of proof would be on you to prove what you have asserted is factually correct.

defamation of whom exactly????

You don't think that asserting the delivery method of a tax is a form of revenge isn't defamatory?

Edited by notorganic: 28/3/2012 03:56:19 PM

no i think delivering the carbon tax to only 500 companies is discrimination...

Whether it is or it isn't, you're claiming that the selection process is based on "getting even", which would take either some very vast inside knowledge or an extraordinary leap of cynical faith.

well we all know labor love to flog those who "have" so they can give it those who "have not","will not","just won't" & "you owe me" .......

and tell me...whats the difference betweena carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme????

Don't ask TAbbott as he has changed his mind at least 4 times on the subject.

No, we don't know that. It's another of your assertions without evidence.



A straight tax is what Tony Abbott suggested when the ALP were proposing an immediate ETS. That's the difference.

We know that he thinks Climate Change is "crap". I'd suggest that it's because he thinks the god of the Israelites already flooded the Earth once and promised never to do it again, but I don't have any evidence for that.

there is plenty of evidence out there.....your just blind and wearing blinkers...


just answer the questions matt....simple....what is the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions tradings scheme???


i think Gillard and the left wing voters of australia should go with a new mission statement

"aspiring to mediocrity"

Cool. I look forward to reviewing it when you post it.




The functional differences? My understanding is that under an ETS a company has a capped amount of emissions and if they want to emit more they need to buy more from the government - alternatively those not needing to emit as much are able to sell their emission credits back to the government to then sell to other companies whereas the tax is a flat rate per tonne until the ETS comes into play within 5 years.

I'm sure it's much more functionally complex than that, but that's the basic gist.




What's your alternative to what you're labelling mediocrity, by the way. You spend a whole lot of time slinging mud and not actually discussing real solutions to the problems you perceive in the nation.

i'd have to the same about you matt...however i can't defend this current government or the previous one under Rudd....sorry... and this apethetic excuse and attitude of the left wing voters that Abbott is no better is pure propaganda and media driven tripe....

i wonder if Abbott or the LNP was responsible for a huge increase in national debt......a failed insulation scheme, a failed solar scheme that has run 3-4 times over budget and is one of the reasons electricity prices are rising due to the generators drop in revenue,grocery watch,petrol watch,my school web site that is now being used to identify the demographics of who is going to selective schools,the Building education Rip off which gas aided in the demise in so many sub contractor and companies, including reed constructions and kell & rigby, and it goes on and on and on and on....but hey your happy with it......that's mediocrity....no aspirations.....i can still hear the labor opposition telling howard how he was lucky to have the mining boom to make him look good and provide surpluses and the futures fund and so on....well we still have the mining boom and its been healthier under this government than any in australia's history, but our finances are a shambles and we have a very boom abd bust multi segemneted economy, and all they can do is tell us how good we have it.......

well i would like to have a load of businesses in this country tell them how it is and what is actually happening out there, not what they concoct with their manipulated statistics.......they are shifting the categories in the social security system to make it look better than it is.....Funnily enough Australia is starting to wake up to the...however you persist to vehemently defend them,,,,,so i suggest you join the Labor party and become a politician, you would fit right in.....


Edited by batfink: 28/3/2012 06:40:12 PM

Edited by batfink: 28/3/2012 07:10:20 PM