Did the troll queen deny giving the UN 10% of the revenue raised by the carbon tax when Julie Bishop accused her - no she didn't, you pea brain!!
The PM in her answer she said she had "very little idea what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was on about" Just as I have very little idea what you are on about. WTF ARE you on about? Why can't you show us any actual evidence that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN". If you claim this is happening - why can't you show us any evidence? And if you have no evidence - why do you keep repeating it like it is a fact? Insults now? Is this because you can't show us any actual evidence that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN". If you can't show us any evidence - you better apologise to the forum for posting lies.
You better apologise to the forum for having your head up Gillards arse!! If you don't want to see the evidence that been shown to you then that's your prerogative - you live with it because its on your conscience now.
You keep going on and on and on about this bloody 10%. Firstly, if it was true it's just small change compared with how much money we have and spend, especially on rubbish. Then you keep refusing to back it up. WOW I reckon you have wasted more electricity with your garbage. Where is the proof to back your mouth .. got none .. if you have POST it Not too important anyway, your gutter language shows us what kind of man you are, so I suppose your comments are redundant
If you can understand more than four letter words; give these links a read. They all say the troll queen IS giving the UN 10% of the revenue raised from the CARBON TAX. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/ http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/you-are-to-be-commended-pat-yourself-on-the-back/
No, I do not say it 'MIGHT' happen at all, you proclaim that. I say it 'IS' happening. Big difference. Billions of Australian dollars 'IS' being paid to this fund ACCORDING to YOUR government. If they are already spending AUSTRALIAN TAX payer dollar in this fashion (something you object about Abbott's plan) it is not a far conclusion to expect Billions more will be sent for continued funding. As for where that funding is coming from? If not from an ETS then must be from increasing TAXES. What can one say, if the person paying the bills tell me they are paying them, I have to assume it is a fact. If a person who has no IDEA about the bill is telling me they are not, who am I meant to believe? You? or your government? Yes I do maintain that BILLIONS of dollars will be sent overseas from this agreement. Really, tell us all, with some substantial sources, what you believe is happening. Please, provide the link you claim is evidence that this is part of Ausaid. But before you continue that this has nothing to do with ETS Carbon Tax or even something hidden under the bed of the commy party. This Funding is Separate to A. carbon trading, tax or any other revenue relevant to these subjects B. Is Totally separate to the ongoing funding of the UN project. "AN AD HOC WORKING GROUP", you are dreaming are you not? Do you actually know what deal Combet signed Australia up to? Do you know what the Government ADMIT to paying BILLIONS to? Apparently it IS going to take 32 billion dollars of work to work out. My bad, you are correct. So, you object because he intended to do it without raising taxes? Yes I'd say it is very significant point. I would also say it goes to show that rather than increasing the poverty rate, the cost of living and the cost of production with new taxes. It is obvious, you oblivious to the plight of many in your own country and others around the world. It is also obvious, there is a lot more money being wasted by this current government, without any regard for it's people. That is very significant. Why should I? It is obvious you do not care about your own people, so why should others?
Could you please show us some actual evidence that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN".? You made the claim - why can't you support it with some actual documented evidence?
An opinion piece by a blogger? Are you serious? Please show us some actual evidence that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN". - or admit that you are simply parrotting some crap you read on a blog. Crap that you cannot find ANY independent evidence to support. Another blog?!?!? Is this the best you can do? Seriously? Please show us some actual evidence that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN". - or admit that you are simply parrotting some crap you read on a blog. Crap that you cannot find ANY independent evidence to support.
You haven't shown ANY actual evidence yet. All you have linked to is an opinion piece by a blogger and a youtube clip of Julie Bishop quoting that blogger. THis is not evidence. It is just a desperate attempt to spread misinformation. If the government WERE actually planning "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN" - don't you think there may be at least SOME evidence of the plan? Rather than just the lone opinion of one blogger? But don't just believe me that you are spreading crap - why don't you listen to Opposition Environment spokesperson Greg Hunt talking to your mate Paul Murray: PAUL MURRAY Greg, if you go to the documents around that transitional committee that is setting up that Green Climate Fund, they all talk about the Fund actually...the Government side of the Fund coming from up to 10% of either a carbon emission trading scheme or a carbon tax whichever a country talks about, thats where the money would come from. At any time during the debate on the carbon tax debate that you sat through, that whole debate, was there any mention from the Government that it saw a role in that carbon tax providing money for a fund like this? GREG HUNT No, to be fair to the Government, they havent said that because they have allocated and spent not just all of the money from the carbon tax but theyre spending more than the money from the carbon tax.... http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/article.aspx?ID=2285 Now - perhaps you should admit that these claims of yours that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN" are 100% crap that you are repeating without a single piece of evidence to support them
There is none, that I can find. There is only media reports (possibly speculation, based on the out comes of agreements made at several meetings and seminars). The only reason credence can be given to it due to Gillards refusal to answer any question with substance or even to make a comment. But is is clearly obvious, that money from these carbon revenues will be sent to the UN. If you look at some of the details of the agreement which Combet signed to Australia to, you will see that it is committment to 2020 with a possible expansion to 2050.
I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time on you!! If it quacks like duck, waddles like a duck and looks like duck, then to 99% of people with a brain, its a duck, but to you it must be a FROG... LOL LOL Good luck with that. World press doesn't count either in your little world. LOL Swan the dog couldn't even answer the bloody question. http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011...arbon-tax-will-be-paid-to-the-united-nations/
Why can't you support your claim that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN" ?!?!? Is it because you have just been caught red-handed repeating crap? What do YOU think Opposition spokesperson for the Environment Greg Hunt? Is the government proposing that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN" ?!?!? http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/article.aspx?ID=2285 I think it is time you apologised to the forum for trying to spread disinformation - don't you? "World Press"?!?!?! You are repeating the same Youtube clip of Julie Bishop parotting Paul Murry!!!!!! You have been caught red-handed champ. All you are doing is repeating the incorrect opinion of some idiot blogger. Youare wrong. !00% wrong. 10% of ETS revenue IS NOT going to the UN. Never was. A grown up would admit it. What are you going to do?
lol Ok, so you say it 'is' happening. Then you're just plain wrong. I don't object to Abbott using tax money to reduce co2, straw man, lol. The fund is in still in the early stages of design and China, India and the US still haven't agreed to anything. Apart from fast start finance ($599 million) the government has allocated NOTHING. And certainly the carbon permits revenue for the first 3 years is fully budgeted, and there is no allocation to a UN Fund. There are no 'bills' and no one is telling you they are paying them. Are you in the habit of paying bills that don't exist garry? Knock yourself out: http://unfccc.int/files/na/application/pdf/07a01-1.pdf Australia's fast-start finance is jointly administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and AusAID. LOL! Oh... bless. Fast Start Finance? Well, here's a clue, we've already paid a third of it and the ETS hasn't even come into effect yet. It's a 3 year commitment totalling $599 million, it's not an ongoing commitment. Yup... 'an ad hoc working group': Paying 'billions' to? Oh really? Where are these billions they have 'paid'? Care to point them out in -any- budget, any budget at all? My bad, you are correct. Yup... lol, I have no idea what Tony Abbott's policy is on the UN fund. And probably, neither does he, or anyone else. But yes, if he's going to contribute to this fund, if for instance the US, China and India were to jump on board, if he's going to do it without raising any taxes, or with a new tax... Let me put it another way, what do you get if you increase spending, and do not increase revenue? It's not exactly rocket science. Unless of course he's just going to cut services, that's great for 'struggling families isn't it'. Oh yeah, raising the tax free threshold from 6k to 18k pe year is going to 'increase the poverty rate'. Increasing the pension and the family tax benefit is going to 'increase the poverty rate'. You've got to be kidding me. We have the carbon price which is giving big tax cuts, and compensation to lower income earners. We have fast start finance, which is helping third world countries to lower their emissions so as they don't need to sacrifice living standards. I'd agree that this government has wasted money, but I do not agree that the ETS, or committing to global agreements in reducing greenhouse emissions, are wasting money. lol, I don't care about them because...? Oh, because you say so! Of course! The government adopted a policy supported by the productivity commission and Garnaut's reports for the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse emissions. John Howard adopted the same policy, I suppose he's a communist too? Malcolm Turnbull, another genuinely right wing politician, a communist? Yeah.. right! As opposed to Abbott's Coalition, who decided to just ignore them and come up with their own ridiculously stupid policy that no one really supports. They won't commit to their paid parental leave scheme without getting a productivity commission report, but they'll just reject their report on carbon emissions policy, harr harr, 'I'm Tony Abbott and I'll only listen to experts if they happen to agree with any of the stupid crap that comes out of my mouth'. So, Abbott has rejected our National Science academies, the UN, our economists, two former Coalition leaders much more capable than him and the productivity commission on climate change policy. Oh yeah, let's back that horse!
Er... 'World Press'? Who the what now? You've given us a link to a free BLOG called 'seeker401' on WORDPRESS: http://wordpress.com/ You've apparently just chucked a L in there that doesn't belong. Bit desperate? Or just a stupid mistake?
So, the government did not say http://australia-unsc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/unsc_candidature_brochure.pdf or is this a government lie as well? So you admit you have nothing but strawman arguments? I believe you complained once before, about Abbott's direct action plan costing tax payers money. So apparently, you considered it far more important, but apparently not now. The government has agreed to pay for the continued funding of this project (which is what Combet signed Australia up to). Sure this has not been finalized, as to how much Australia will pay. However, the government has committed itself to ongoing funding, not speculation. As for allocation for the funding of the UN, Should Australia pay it's fair share of developed nations to ongoing funding? So, Australia intends to refuse to pay for it's loans, the government has decided that it no longer pays any money out? Obtuseness, is not becoming. firstly I asked for evidence which this does not supply. secondly just because it is administered by departments does not mean it is derived from the funds. There is a difference you know. Well DUH. I have said that all along, but you are busy making up your own strawman arguments For what? To show how much smarter you are? no that can not be it. Maybe how well you are educated? No can not be that. Simple comprehension would tell you that I stated, unless you have a secret Carbon Tax, it is coming out of the tax payers money that you so much object to about Abbott's direct action Plan. You know that strawman Argument. No it is not, did you even read the link you posted (which I had already posted). So you think you are so well informed, but you have no Idea what Combet signed Australia up to. No, care to provide refutable evidence? Seeing as I have provided everything and you nothing, I am assuming you have nothing. Gee, we can agree on something, that is nobody, including you and me. This is a strawman Argument? and now you are defending your own statements? Make up your mind, will you? I find this argument only shows your previous hypocrisy when you proclaim them as strawman. now you do it in the same post. Well, what is it? it wont work unless he takes the gifts of wealth distribution in Australia? or if he does not increase taxes? Could he not reduce bureaucracy? could he not reduce wasteful spending of the Australian government? Or is that too hard? Tell me, could he incentives work in Australia, rather than welfare? But that is another issue altogether isn't it? Oh, I see, you have no idea where the poverty rate is in Australia? So you consider by raising the minimum level of where the worker pays tax will be compensated for the billions taken from the community. I don't know, give a few million back and take (by government estimates) 27 billion is good compensation? How many of these people will qualify for the compensation packages? pensions? What a joke. will it cover the expense increases brought about by this new tax? not even you government experts believe it will. And the family tax benefit will actually be effected by increasing the tax free threshold. How much will it rise? your dreaming as usual with no consideration for the lesser of your own country, because you simply can not imagine how hard it is for some people. HAHAHAHAHA no you must be kidding yourself. Big tax cuts? Not to linger on repetitive issues. but tell me how great is that standard of living you want to maintain for third world nations? Read your link A little harder. the UN wish to use the money not only to help them become ecologically sustainable but to aid in eradicating poverty in ( you guessed it) third world countries. It is if it is not going to achieve anything. No, because you show that you do not care. Everybody will be fine in your book. You have never been in a position that you have no idea where your next meal comes from or when you will have it. but you are very prepared to send many people to that fate, on the pretext that is so great for you. I am guessing if you get hurt by anything a government does to you, you will squeal like a stuffed pig and expect everybody else to come to you aid. Oh, you so hurt by the commy money under the bed aren't you? you poor thing. perhaps if you read back you will see how badly you muffed that one. I have never claimed any Australian politician as a communist. so when you are finished dreaming up your own arguments to defend, you can actually get back to point. Such a silly person evidence please, or are you just making that up? me thinks the later What, Greens and the ALP are any different? Perhaps you could support the difference of you claim with some evidence? maybe you can not. Who's report? Insulting your opposition leader does not make any difference to the debate. This would show more about the poster and not subject. And I thought you consider that as a strawman Argument? Haha and they all agree with Gillard and Brown, don't they? So far all you have done is flap your gums. No substance and simple attempts to claim a victory with some effort to say it is right because the other is wrong. So when do we see some substance or do we expect to hear nothing but your opinion. As we already, know you are usually light on support, but making things up is simply stupid.
With all due respect; you are wasting your time with these pair of idiots, because they don't want to see the truth about the troll queens mistakes, because that will muck up their perfect little fantasy about her. LOL LOL They actually smell like a couple of paid lab-rat trolls - trolling these forums for their masters, because no one in the real world is that stupid.
You will say anything, mostly garbage, but you refuse to back up your arguments with any reference. Your 10% is still as much fantasy as Abbott's dreams of being PM are. Alice in wonderland stuff. Good work ...NOT
Er... No, they did say that. Explain to me how $599 million (our share of the $32 bil raised for Fast Start Finance) is "billions"? And how this has any relevance to your claim that 10% of the ETS revenue is going overseas? lol... No, you had the straw man argument. I'm not against Abbott using tax money to reduce co2 emissions. The ETS costs tax payers directly almost 4 billion as well, lol. Oh wow. Just like we agreed to commit to emissions reductions targets of over 20% by 2020... if there's a global agreement. Yeah, like that's gonna happen. What you maintain (or at least what you started with, lol) is that 10% of the ETS revenue is going to the UN fund, that combet has "signed" and committed to it, that the money is allocated. Oh and that billions has already been sent overseas. lt's foreign aid, administered by AusAid and Climate Change ministry. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ETS REVENUE. The ETS didn't even exist when this money was allocated. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. ^^ You said that BILLIONS had already been given to the UN fund because you thought our contribution to Fast Start Finance was 3 x $599 million. You don't know what you're talking about! lol You have created a strawman argument, that I've created a strawman argument, hillarious. I have no problem with ANYONE spending tax dollars on reducing co2 emissions. In fact, I think Abbott should triple his spending. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in? We have committed $599 million to fast start finance. Our legal commitments go NO FURTHER. There will need to be a NEW AGREEMENT which is still in the PLANNING STAGES and will not be completed until probably 2015. Combet hasn't "signed" anything, there has been NO LEGALLY BINDING COMMITMENT. Global Climate talks have not been progressing well, there is no guarantee that the Green Climate Fund will raise any more money. I suppose you mean irrefutable, lol, evidence of what? You have the outcomes of the working group in caucun. It clearly states the fund is still in the design phase and is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It suggests that nations could raise the revenue for the fund from a carbon tax, or ETS, it doesn't mandate it. You're the one asserting that "billions" has already gone overseas, that 10% of the ETS has been "committed" and that it "is" going overseas. So you're the one that needs to produce the evidence, lol. How am I supposed to produce evidence that contradicts something that doesn't exist? I mean, you can go through and read the ETS legislation, which I've suggested many times. Amazing. DEFICIT, is the answer you were looking for. lol Poverty in Australia has nothing to do with climate change policy. But the ETS certainly isn't going to put people into poverty, as you claimed. Don't suppose you will actually support that BS with any evidence? No... that'd be expecting too much. Still suggest you go and actually read the governments policy... but... no you're not going to do that either. lol. Yeah... it will. That's what it's designed to do. So we've previously established that you don't live here, and that you've never even been here, and yet you're presuming to tell me I don't know about the people in my own country? lol, Nice one! Raising the tax free threshold from 6k to 18k is a big tax cut, no other way to spin it garry. Yeah, and? They either pull their people out of poverty with cheap energy from fossil fuels, or we (about 24 nations) help subsidise cleaner more expensive power generation that will also bring them out of poverty and not bugger up the climate. And that's just your stupid opinion. I'll take the Productivity Commissions Report and Garnaut's Report every day of the week over your stupid, uninformed opinion. Everyone will be fine. Did the sky fall in when the GST was introduced? Nope. Yet that raises over $50 billion a year, compared to $9 billion from the ETS. About $2 billion of that goes directly back to lower income earners in tax cuts, compensation, etc, and about $3 billion goes into job security and training, etc. So, saying that people are going to end up starving from the introduction of an ETS is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Whose*, the Productivity Commissions. I linked it somewhere earlier if you want to read it, I'm not posting it again. So are you still claiming that billions has been sent overseas? And it's a 'fact' that 10% of the ETS revenue is going to this fund? Look at Bug's post. Even the Shadow Climate Change minister admitted that the government hasn't signed away 10% of the ETS revenue. So... who actually agrees with you? No one apparently, lol.
Why can't you support your claim that "10% of ETS revenue is going to the UN" ? Are you just going to run away now? Even the Opposition Environment spokesperson disagrees with the blogger you get your crap from: PAUL MURRAY Greg, if you go to the documents around that transitional committee that is setting up that Green Climate Fund, they all talk about the Fund actually...the Government side of the Fund coming from up to 10% of either a carbon emission trading scheme or a carbon tax whichever a country talks about, that’s where the money would come from. GREG HUNT No, to be fair to the Government, they haven’t said that.. http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/article.aspx?ID=2285 You have been caught red-handed spreading misinformation on the forum. All you are doing is repeating the incorrect opinion of some idiot blogger. You are wrong. !00% wrong. 10% of ETS revenue IS NOT going to the UN. Never was. A grown up would admit it. What are you going to do?
