…a new report shows that the problems of the EU ETS are systemic and unresolvable. Keeping this failed system in place would further delay real action for reducing emissions in Europe. The report “EU ETS myth busting: why it can’t be reformed and shouldn’t be replicated”, has been published by several signatory organisations from the “Time to scrap the ETS” declaration. It looks at a number of claims made in defence of the EU ETS and shows why they are not valid.
Amusingly, for any readers foolish enough to swallow the Liberal Party’s baloney about their “Direct Action” alternative “solution” to the “problem” of man-made climate change, the report calls for … wait for it … direct action alternatives to emissions trading.
Meanwhile, the EU carbon price has collapsed, after a vote to try and reform the EU ETS failed to pass. This has ugly ramifications for the already hideous Federal budgeting performance of the Labor party:
The EU’s carbon price sank to 2.55 euros ($A3.24) in trading overnight, as legislators rejected a proposal to save the market from collapse.
The federal budget currently assumes a $29 carbon price in 2015, when Australia’s carbon trading scheme is linked to the EU carbon market.
True to form, and apparently unable to recognise that they are deep deep deep in a hole of their own making, the pig-headed public trough-swillers in the Labor party choose to keep right on digging:
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet told the ABC: “We will continue with our plans to link with the European emissions trading scheme from 1 July 2015, which is still over two years away.”
Sigh.
The bankers, speculators, traders, and assorted financial parasites will be pleased.
In the rigged casino of global financial markets, Volatility = Profit potential
Your humble blogger recently sought legal advice from a prominent constitutional barrister, specifically concerning clauses 109A and 110 of the Clean Energy Act 2011.
Like the mortgage-backed derivatives that blew up the world financial system in the GFC, carbon-unit-backed derivatives are simply the next form of wholly unregulated, unmonitored, shadow banking artificial “money” creation that has had bankers licking their lips in anticipation from the moment the(ir) draft legislation was released:
14 July 2011, Business Spectator — Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.
Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market….
I have now been informed by the eminent barrister referred to above, that I am right.
If it is judicially accepted that the Clean Energy Act 2011 is a bill “imposing taxation”, then the two cleverly worded little clauses buried within 1,000+ pages of legislation that I have long identified as those that specifically allow the shadow banking industry to begin creating and trading (unlimited quantities of) carbon dioxide derivatives, are, in the barrister’s opinion, in breach of section 55 of the Constitution:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
As we have seen previously, there are numerous other areas of the legislation whose constitutionality is highly questionable and thus contestable, under section 55 and other sections too.
Unfortunately, I am advised that private citizens have no legal standing to mount a challenge against the legislation in the High Court.
[EDIT: For the reason that private citizens are not directly subject to the legislation. This perhaps answers the question many have asked, as to why the government still refuses to release a definitive list naming who exactly are the “biggest polluters”. If those who will have standing to challenge the legislation in the High Court do not have confirmed proof of this, it would appear that they could not prove legal standing in order to file an injunction to prevent the bankster scam starting up in the first place. Doubtless this key information will not be made known until after the government has sent out billions in “compensation” bribes to households in May, and parked $10 billion in the banksters’ Clean Energy Finance corporation in such a way that it cannot be retrieved.]
Those in the best position to mount a legal challenge, who do have standing before the High Court, are the State governments.
Having campaigned heavily for our vote on the back of a solemn promise to “fight” the carbon tax if elected, Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman have now shown their true colours.
As two-faced standard bearers.
For the predatory, parasitic banking industry that they depend on to help finance their election campaigns, thanks to our rigged and decrepit system of governance that means political parties do not get their hands on the public cash in proportion to their share of the popular vote, until after the vote count has been determined at each election.
For a political leader to promise not to foist a predatory bankster scam on the public, and then do it, is an unforgivable crime against basic human decency and integrity, and, an unforgivable violation of public trust.
But to present yourself as a saviour, and plead for our vote with a promise to fight a predatory bankster scam, only to weasel out of actually doing anything to fight it once elected, is, in the firm opinion of this citizen blogger, a far worse crime.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that on this issue, Julia Gillard is arguably one rung higher from the bottom of the rancid sewer that is politicians’ “integrity”, than Barry O’Farrell, Campbell Newman, and any other politician who has deceitfully gained political capital by falsely presenting themselves as an opponent of and a fighter against the banksters’ CO2 derivatives scam.
UPDATE:
Speaking of constitutional expert Greg Craven, here’s an excerpt from a column he has written for The Australian today –
“MEAN” is never a good word. There are mean dogs, mean great-aunts and mean parking inspectors. They all bite professionally, and enjoy their work.
Take X-rated state election results. Kristina Keneally was the bad premier of a bad government, but the last act of public vengeance rivalling her defeat was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Anna Bligh was the fairish premier of a decrepit government, but she copped worse.
Federally, in terms of a normal electoral cycle, the Gillard government should now be contemplating whether a third term will be merely tough or downright heroic. Instead, ministers stockpile cyanide pills along with press releases.
It is easy to dismiss all this as the result of poor leadership, bad policy and weak personal hygiene. But the reality is that Australian politicians everywhere are now faced with a terminally jaded electorate, less inclined to pass judgment than automatic sentence of death…
#^&%(^$! oath.
UPDATE:
By Abbott’s own words, Liberal Party premier of NSW Barry O’Farrell and Liberal party premier of QLD Campbell Newman stand condemned.
THE passage of the carbon tax has received a boost, with legal advice to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell suggesting that a High Court challenge to block the tax would fail.
On Friday, Mr O’Farrell said NSW would consider joining a potential bid by Queensland to block the July 1 implementation of the carbon tax in the courts.
But The Sun-Herald understands Mr O’Farrell has already abandoned any thought of leading an assault on the Gillard government. Sources confirmed advice had come back that a legal challenge would be likely to fail in proving the carbon tax was unconstitutional.
So, advice that you are “likely” to fail is sufficient reason to not fulfill your pre-election promise, hey Bazza? Sounds like a convenient excuse from a twisting and turning liar to me.
The reluctance of NSW to challenge the controversial tax is likely to slow momentum for a High Court bid. Victoria, like NSW, has said it would consider joining a Queensland bid.
The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, has stated publicly that his advice is that a bid would fail. The Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, said he would not act without at least one other state with him in alliance.
The fix is in.
Unsurprising. And just what this blogger predicted.
A PROMINENT Australian legal expert says he believes the Gillard government’s carbon tax is unconstitutional and that the three largest states stand a chance of successfully overturning the legislation in the event of a High Court challenge.
The University of New England academic and practicing barrister, Bryan Pape, has provided legal advice to conservative policy think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, that says the carbon tax legislation — due to come into effect on July 1 — could be challenged on several grounds including that, ”the Commonwealth cannot tax State property: Legally carbon dioxide emissions are State property”.
The advice goes on to say that, in Mr Pape’s legal opinion, ”the Commonwealth cannot impose a carbon tax and other related penalties within the same Act. The Commonwealth cannot introduce a carbon tax within its external affairs powers”.
Mr Pape — a specialist in taxation and administrative law — made headlines in 2009 when he mounted a High Court challenge over Labor’s $42 billion stimulus package, arguing that the $900 payments to individuals exceeded the federal government’s taxation powers.
“These greenhouse gases are property owned by the States and it is impermissible for the Commonwealth to impose any tax on any property of any kind belonging to a State,” Mr Pape said.
The full bench of the court ruled in favour of the Commonwealth by a margin of 4-3.
”The IPA commissioned a legal opinion because state governments have sat on their hands and let the Gillard government introduce a tax that they could potentially stop,” he said.
”Only the High Court can decide the constitutionality of the carbon tax, but there are clear grounds to challenge it according to one of Australia’s top administrative law minds.”
Mr Wilson said the full text of the legal opinion would not be released ”pending a possible legal challenge.”
”A copy has being provided to the Premiers and Attorneys-General of the states with the best legal standing for a potential challenge – New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia,” he said.
The legal advice will arrive on the desks of state premiers as they prepare to travel to Canberra this week for Friday’s Council of Australian Governments meeting, where, for the first time in 4½ years in office, Labor will be outnumbered at the negotiating table.
Long past time that others joined the fray to pressure State premiers such as Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman to make good on their pre-election promises.
He also suggests the Commonwealth can’t impose a carbon tax and related penalties within the same piece of legislation nor use the external affairs powers of the constitution.
Barnaby Joyce has written an article for the Australian Conservative, posing a question that regular readers all know the answer to (my emphasis added):
David Murray, outgoing Chairman of the Future Fund has blasted the carbon tax as the worst piece of economic reform he has ever seen.
So if the unions don’t like it, big business doesn’t like it, manufacturing doesn’t like it, farmers don’t like it, the electorate pathologically hates it, well the question then is who actually wants it? And how powerful is that minority? Where is the constituency that wants this tax? In Warrego on the weekend, out of 20,000 votes, the Greens received only 325. Maybe this is an example of how toxic these types of green policies have become.
The Labor party have tried to change the name to make the tax more palatable. First it was a tax to deal with global warming, then it was a tax to deal with climate change and now it is a tax for clean energy. What’s next? The happy pet tax? The peace in our time tax? It’s all the same, it’s an insane and very economically dangerous bureaucratic rip off.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Comments