Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Let's just look at this for a moment or two.
If the tax is to be effective, I would have thought and remembering from economics 1A, that the funds should be channeled into a scheme that would effectively reduce carbon output. Something like putting solar panels on every house in the next 5-10 years. Where people no longer pay an electricity bill (or at least heavily reduced) and the carbon output of the large polluting sources is significantly reduced. It is not base load but a huge output so much so that overall impact is great. Nope, what is proposed it to set up 6 different agencies, employ more people who use more power, paper and create a beaucratic sponge where all the money is sucked up and only 10% of the tax goes into renewable sources. Where the middle class will again pay the penalty for having a fair income. I seriously doubt that carbon emissions can be affected when nothing concrete is done to reduce them by the government who institutes the tax. I am yet to hear anything coherent come out of the Prime Ministers mouth about how things are going to be better for the environoment. No examples of how the tax will be paying for green energy, just condescending platitudes that assumes we all know nothing at all. The end user pays for the tax and the polluters pass on the cost to them to us. Paper shuffling, power wastage more talk and no action.
It's not the idea I object to; it is their usual implementation of policy that bothers me.
We loves you too Mike, we just don't think we all should vote labor  . |
The problem with direct action plans is that it requires government to choose the winner. The carbon tax, at least as I understand it, simply taxes excess CO2 emissions making it more costly. The market then decides which alternative energy sources to adopt.