Quote:

Australia Won't Sign Fossil Fuel Agreement Elise Scott AAP DECEMBER 1, 2015 1:19AM PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull won't sign an international agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies amid concerns it could jeopardise Australia's diesel fuel rebates. MR Turnbull has opted out of signing the key fossil fuel subsidy reform communique at major United Nations climate talks in Paris, a government spokeswoman confirmed. The call to phase out the subsidies is being labelled the "missing piece of the climate change puzzle" and is led by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key. More than 30 countries and hundreds of businesses have signed the communique calling for the ultimate elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, saying the cost should reflect both environmental costs and supply costs. "The majority of fossil-fuel subsidies are also socially regressive, with benefits disproportionately skewed toward middle-and upper-middle income households," the communique states. A partial phase out could generate 12 per cent of the emissions reduction needed by 2020 to be on the path towards limiting global warming to two degrees, it says. However, Mr Turnbull won't bow to international pressure and join the call on Monday with MPs back home concerned the agreement could harm diesel subsidies claimed by farmers and miners. National's MP George Christensen took to Twitter to vent his anger, saying the end of the rebate would cost jobs. "To sign this is madness. It will cost jobs & give greens ammo to attack coal further," he tweeted. The Australian Conservation Foundation labelled the communique an early test for Australia at the UN climate change conference. "The diesel rebate is notorious because it means while Australian motorists pay 38 cents in tax on every litre of fuel they buy, some of the world's biggest mining companies pay not a single cent in tax for the diesel they use in their mining operations," foundation economist Matthew Rose said. But National's MP Barnaby Joyce maintains the diesel fuel rebate is not a subsidy. "Farmers and miners don't use public roads, so why should they pay a public road tax?" he told the Australian newspaper. The G20 and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group agreed to phase out inefficient fuel subsidies in 2009. Earlier this month, the OECD signed an agreement to restrict export credits for inefficient coal power plants overseas to encourage the use of cleaner technology. Mr Turnbull is in Paris for the climate talks, where it's hoped 196 parties will sign a historic agreement to curb emissions and limit global warming to at least two degrees. Australia will commit to doubling investment in renewable energy as part of Mission Innovation, an initiative involving 20 countries including the United States. The 20 countries represent 80 per cent of global clean energy research and development budgets. As part of the plan, Australian government investment in clean energy research and development will double to about $200 million by 2020.

****theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/aust-wont-sign-fossil-fuel-agreement/story-fn3dxix6-1227628848585

Of course he will not sign a fossil fuel agreement. Gina told him not to. >:( >:(

This will puzzle the Malcolm watchers.

The Turnbull Mob have no plan on keeping the world under 2DegWarming.

Runaway global warming is their target.

Quote:

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull won't sign an international agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies amid concerns it could jeopardise Australia's diesel fuel rebates.

The fossil fuel rebate can be axed without disadvantaging farmers and miners if it is replaced by a scheme where diesel fuel that is manufactured (biodiesel or synthetic diesel) is exempt from excise.

I don't think we're seeing the real reason here.

Quote:

But National's MP Barnaby Joyce maintains the diesel fuel rebate is not a subsidy. "Farmers and miners don't use public roads, so why should they pay a public road tax?" he told the Australian newspaper.

Joyce is being wilfully misleading here. It's not a "public road tax". The proceeds go into general revenue. Drought assistance has to be paid for somehow.

The Liberals are in government, but the Nationals are in power...  ::)

____ wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 8:33am:

The Turnbull Mob have no plan on keeping the world under 2DegWarming. Runaway global warming is their target.

I'm not sure that's the case, but it is abundantly clear that the Abbott-Turnbull government has caved in to vested interests: miners, farmers and the fossil fuel industry.

The Fuel Tax Credits are assessable income, in the hands of the recipients.

'What to include in your assessable income'

'fuel tax credits, product stewardship (oil) benefit and cleaner fuels grant'

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Income-and-deductions-for-business/Working-out-your-assessable-income/What-to-include-in-your-assessable-income/

So it would be a fully taxed subsidy? Net result $).

It is appalling that our elected representatives don't know this.

____ wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 8:33am:

The Turnbull Mob have no plan on keeping the world under 2DegWarming. Runaway global warming is their target.

ohhhhh and elavine assured us that paris was the be all end all of soggy saos in the AGW loons sphere.

I guess the circle jerk is over.

Bam wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 8:39am:

The fossil fuel rebate can be axed without disadvantaging farmers and miners

If you drop the diesel rebate for farmers you will pay more for your farm produce, the farmers will just pass on the costs to the consumers.

If everyone is happy paying more for meat-fruit and vegetables then drop the diesel rebate.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:18pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 8:39am: The fossil fuel rebate can be axed without disadvantaging farmers and miners If you drop the diesel rebate for farmers you will pay more for your farm produce, the farmers will just pass on the costs to the consumers. If everyone is happy paying more for meat-fruit and vegetables then drop the diesel rebate.

The left are incapable of seeing that if you tax more, if you rebate less, if you put up wages......ect, it all comes back to the consumer at xxxx more to buy and the person, company creating the goods, will always push for xxxx amount of profit regardless.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:18pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 8:39am: The fossil fuel rebate can be axed without disadvantaging farmers and miners If you drop the diesel rebate for farmers you will pay more for your farm produce, the farmers will just pass on the costs to the consumers. If everyone is happy paying more for meat-fruit and vegetables then drop the diesel rebate.

You missed the point ... "without disadvantaging farmers and miners". If there is no disadvantage there is no extra cost to be passed on.

We pay more in taxes so farmers can get all manner of tax breaks and grants that few other people get. Socialise the losses! Privatise the profits! That's the National party's creed.

Who pays for the diesel fuel subsidy? Everyone else does. It costs more than $500 per year per household on average. For the mining industry, 85% of that money goes overseas. It's foreign aid for rich foreigners. Madness!

Farmers also get many other breaks as well. Drought assistance is paid for by everyone else. While I don't begrudge some assistance to farmers when there's a prolonged drought, it is rather greedy of them to expect others to pay for this. Socialise the losses! Privatise the profits!

The diesel fuel rebate can be axed and the savings used to fund assistance to farmers. As a cohort, farmers lean very heavily on everyone else and it is time that they were made more self-funding. With more funds, it may also be possible to make the existing schemes more generous if this is deemed necessary.

It's also why we should offer alternatives to the diesel subsidy. Excise-free renewable fuels would be a good place to start.

Bam wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 1:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:18pm: Bam wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 8:39am: The fossil fuel rebate can be axed without disadvantaging farmers and miners If you drop the diesel rebate for farmers you will pay more for your farm produce, the farmers will just pass on the costs to the consumers. If everyone is happy paying more for meat-fruit and vegetables then drop the diesel rebate. You missed the point ... "without disadvantaging farmers and miners". If there is no disadvantage there is no extra cost to be passed on. We pay more in taxes so farmers can get all manner of tax breaks and grants that few other people get. Socialise the losses! Privatise the profits! That's the National party's creed. Who pays for the diesel fuel subsidy? Everyone else does. It costs more than $500 per year per household on average. For the mining industry, 85% of that money goes overseas. It's foreign aid for rich foreigners. Madness! Farmers also get many other breaks as well. Drought assistance is paid for by everyone else. While I don't begrudge some assistance to farmers when there's a prolonged drought, it is rather greedy of them to expect others to pay for this. Socialise the losses! Privatise the profits! The diesel fuel rebate can be axed and the savings used to fund assistance to farmers. As a cohort, farmers lean very heavily on everyone else and it is time that they were made more self-funding. With more funds, it may also be possible to make the existing schemes more generous if this is deemed necessary. It's also why we should offer alternatives to the diesel subsidy. Excise-free renewable fuels would be a good place to start.

Do you even know a farmer?  You seem to be an expert on farming and the costs involved...Just wondering  ;)