IPCC Report and the Average Joe

As I waited in the supermarket today I asked the friendly shop assistant how business had been. To my surprise, given I was buying food essentials, she replied that business is slow.
People are finding life expensive and have cut down on essentials such as food.
She also mentioned the cost of electricity and water being so high.

To turn the conversation to a more positive note I mentioned that I had invested in Solar Power and was receiving some money off my electricity bill and money back from the company. This started a productive exchange about how useful and expensive this process was. To my surprise the lady following me also mentioned she had been investigating solar power and her friend already received a substantial reduction in her electricity bills because of their investment in Solar.

This supermarket is in a low socio-economic area of Melbourne. One of the "Righteous "complaints about the current Solar schemes and other RET investments is that they are causing poor people to suffer.
We shall see how much the upcoming budget will continue that process.

Poor people are by definition poor. They have very little disposable income. It is short-sighted not to be concerned, but equally short-sighted not to change important essentials such as food, petrol, electricity, gas if that is needed and to help the poor manage that adjustment.

In all this debate about the Carbon Tax, how many people have forgotten the money paid back to individuals to allow them to bear the higher electricity costs? The tax free threshold has been raised for the poorest as well as the rest of us.

The IPCC Report released yesterday 31 March 2014 -

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

 makes it clear why these taxes are necessary.

The Australian

This research has indicated life will be much worse if we don't act effectively.
While a Carbon Tax is not the whole solution, its an important first step.
Ask Clive Palmer how much Queensland Nickel has paid into this years budget and how much more he can afford to pay, considering the money he's reportedly pouring into election campaigns in WA.
Who can afford that?
The lady in the supermarket from the poorer end of town, or a mining magnate?

Give and Take : Household Budget Roundabout

Recent media reports are suggesting housholders may receive a savings of $550 on their electricity bills as a result of the probable repeal of the Carbon Tax.
This is more than my actual calculated cost of the Carbon Tax.

Other commentary continues with an estimate of how much Direction Action will cost each householder - $1200. This claim also needs to be subjected to scrutiny, see the link to Polifact's Checking service in August 2013, in terms of the estimated, detailed, modelling. Unlike the Carbon Tax I don't have any details to do my estimates and its out of my calculatability league anyway.

So I'll believe neither estimate until I get my actual figures and can compare them.
But of course, by then it will be too late.

A bit like real action on Climate Change and a realization that fundamental reforms to the way we conduct our lives and businesses are needed now to allow us to transform to a decarbonized economy, reduce the costs associated with extreme weather events, and build green jobs for those people who are suffering from the decline in manufacturing, retail and now agricultural jobs. And also to allow the little people, like me, some ability to control their costs other than switching off and pulling out of the economy.

The Australian's article, Ben Packham from: The Australian, October 15, 2013, mentions "The Prime Minister said liable entitles - like Clive Palmer's Queensland Nickel, which owes $6.2 million for carbon permits - should pay their carbon tax obligations until then. "

Were you wondering why Clive Palmer entered politics??  His investment in the 2013 election may have a good return perhaps?