On May 18, 11:19=A0am, son of a bitch
wrote:
> Sir John Howard wrote:
> > Reverse solar subsidy cut, say Greens
>
> >http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23714640-29277,00.html
>
> > GREENS leader Bob Brown today urged Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to
> > reverse the Budget blunder which had devastated solar power businesses
> > around Australia.
>
> > Senator Brown said voters had expected the Rudd Government to use its
> > first Budget to tackle climate change.
>
> > "Instead this was an Exocet missile into a key industry for reducing
> > greenhouse gas emissions," he said in a statement.
>
> > "This is a stunning solar stuffup for Labor's first Budget."
>
> > In a move announced in the Budget, only households earning less than
> > $100,000 will be eligible for the $8000 rebate, aimed at offsetting
> > the cost of installing solar panels to generate electricity.
>
> > The threshold is lower than the $150,000 earnings limit the Government
> > also announced in the Budget for households to receive certain family
> > tax benefits.
>
> > This move has prompted widespread complaints of cancelled orders from
> > across the solar panel installation industry.
>
> > Senator Brown said this obviously was not thought through.
>
> > "If either (Environment Minister) Peter Garrett or (Climate Change
> > Minister) Penny Wong were consulted or backed this absurd move they
> > should hang their heads in shame. Their silence has been deafening,"
> > he said.
>
> > Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said only the environment would
> > suffer from this move.
>
> > "One day they're telling us that someone who earns $150,000 is rich -
> > the next day apparently, if you earn $100,000 you're rich," he said.
>
> > Dr Nelson said this was unfair to households that are considering
> > solar panels and a step backwards in reducing greenhouse gas
> > emissions.
>
> > "The Government seems to think that someone who earns $100,000 is
> > rich," Dr Nelson said.
>
> > "And how do you put a means test on the environment?"
>
> > -----------------------------------
>
> > Yep, no doubt about it. KRudd is a slimy arsehole.
>
> Solar Panels have never been a cheap alternative and probably
> never will be. Their only affordable if somebody else pays
> for them. And even then won't pay themselves for at 10-15 years,
> by then will need replacing also.
>
That's broadly true.
> If every house in Oz has solar panels so the demand for
> Power Stations is reduced, the unit cost is just going to
> sky-rocket. Iemma will once again be forced to give handouts
> to the Chinese Owners of the Power Stations for lost
> revenue, and you'll be paying more Tax to cover it.
>
You'll need to explain that one
> You can also apply the same rules to Electric vs Petrol
> cars. If everyone had a Electric Car the world would be
> Bankrupt
Let's specify. Are you claiming that if everyone who commutes had an
electric-only vehicle that the world would be bankrupt?
Fran |