Uncertain what a carbon tax is

[marki]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

He he never thought of that

Yes it would have been interesting to see how the carbon price/climate change debate would be panning out now had the independants sided with the coalition, my best guess is that the current situation would likely be largely reversed ...that is the ironic thing really and makes the apparent strong opinions against a Carbon price from so many ardent coalition supporters so comical to me

Mike

Agree totally but thats how the game is played. My only fear is that the money collected will not end up going where it should and I believe that it should go to developing new technologies to stop the wasteful burning of such a important resource.

Mark

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by marki

Agree totally but thats how the game is played. My only fear is that the money collected will not end up going where it should and I believe that it should go to developing new technologies to stop the wasteful burning of such a important resource.

Mark

Exactly,I don't think i have ever seen taxes collected go to the right area. Maybe they will

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

It's not the CO2 from the volcanoes that does the damage it's the SO2

[Deeno]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

He he never thought of that

Yes it would have been interesting to see how the carbon price/climate change debate would be panning out now had the independants sided with the coalition, my best guess is that the current situation would likely be largely reversed ...that is the ironic thing really and makes the apparent strong opinions against a Carbon price from so many ardent coalition supporters so comical to me

Mike

Good for you Mike.
It must make you feel big and powerfull with your 'what ifs' and 'best guesses' to simply belittle those who don't share your left wing opinions

[TrevorW]

Again lets not judge individual political points of view but stick to the facts

will this tax be constructive and proactive or just a kneejerk inadequate reaction to pontificate political partners

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

He he never thought of that

Yes it would have been interesting to see how the carbon price/climate change debate would be panning out now had the independants sided with the coalition, my best guess is that the current situation would likely be largely reversed ...that is the ironic thing really and makes the apparent strong opinions against a Carbon price from so many ardent coalition supporters so comical to me

Mike

I wouldn't say there are a lot of coalition supporters here.
I would say there are a lot of people fed up with the amount of tax we already pay in this country let alone another one.
As I said before if 100% of this money was going to go to renewable energy and cleaner manufacturing, creating new jobs ect, I don't think people would be so against it.

phil

[gregbradley]

I thought that this whole carbon thing represents an amazing opportunity for any country. It would require a large investment from the Govt to support a new industry that produces clean or cleaner energy alternatives.

Imaging how rich the countries will be in the future that develop workable technology that the current political scene will enforce being used?

There is trillions of dollars up for grabs looking at it from a more creative and opportunity viewpoint rather than a we only have we've got so we have to make polluting more expensive viewpoint.

I would like to see a more positive approach to the problem.

Only question would be where would the money come from? That would be a hot topic.

As far as a carbon tax and the proceeds going to projects like this - it would have to highly regulated as our petrol
tax was supposed to go towards roads and I doubt very much if more than a small fraction of that is actually going there but being used
in other areas.


Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Deeno

Good for you Mike.
It must make you feel big and powerfull with your 'what ifs' and 'best guesses' to simply belittle those who don't share your left wing opinions

Gee, what tha?

I was mearly pointing out how ironic our political system can be sometimes, I wasn't making a personal attack on any individual

Actually, I haven't heard such personal flamming comments like that since my school days ...but I can take it

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I thought that this whole carbon thing represents an amazing opportunity for any country. It would require a large investment from the Govt to support a new industry that produces clean or cleaner energy alternatives.

Imaging how rich the countries will be in the future that develop workable technology that the current political scene will enforce being used?

There is trillions of dollars up for grabs looking at it from a more creative and opportunity viewpoint rather than a we only have we've got so we have to make polluting more expensive viewpoint.

I would like to see a more positive approach to the problem.

Only question would be where would the money come from? That would be a hot topic.

As far as a carbon tax and the proceeds going to projects like this - it would have to highly regulated as our petrol
tax was supposed to go towards roads and I doubt very much if more than a small fraction of that is actually going there but being used
in other areas.


Greg.

Unfortunately the development of 2 systems are both from overseas companies. It is a shame that an Australian company has a working trial systems running in Spain and a couple of countries in solar updraft energy power generation and yet cannot see the government trialing this in Australia.

Logical statement but I don't think the Australian government are very illogical in using funds properly.

http://www.enviromission.com.au

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation to this mob other than I am Australian.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Deeno

Good for you Mike.
It must make you feel big and powerfull with your 'what ifs' and 'best guesses' to simply belittle those who don't share your left wing opinions

Left wing He's a Labour supporter for pity's sake. How 'left' can he be? He wants to use the market system, not tear it down. That objectively puts him on the right wing, just not as far right as some others.

[Paul Haese]

What is a carbon tax?

In theory it is an impost designed to reduce the emissions of the end user. ie carbon tax on coal is designed to reduce the burning of this product in the generation of power and the end user (us) from being wasteful.

There is a couple of effects to the introduction of a tax. Firstly the tax is passed on to the end consumer. Second the end consumer has less to spend overall as a result of the tax.

This is supposedly going to be offset by tax cuts and welfare payments to some elements of our society.

There is a big problem with this style of thinking though. It is circular. Nothing will ever get done to change what is happening while a tax like this exists. It is just pure revenue raising and nothing more than that. The government departments that will administer this tax will be huge and that will eat up what is left over from paying out people. The tax should be smaller and implemented to pay for new technology. Once said technology is working remove the tax.

It also affects the poor more than the rich (who are more likely to use more energy anyway and not care about the cost). Even with offsets the poor can hardly afford to pay the bills now. Pensioners are having to turn everything off now at night and go to bed early because they cannot afford to pay their bills because everything else is costing a lot too. The energy companies will increase the prices over the top anyway to offset any inconvenience this has to them. This minor increase will cripple the battlers and more importantly the middle income earners who will get virtually nothing from the deal. The middle income earners are paying for expensive housing with high interest rates. This will cause defaults to increase over what they are now. This in effect damages the economy because less money is entering the system. The economy then slows down and we enter a recession.

Next add the effect this will have on local industry. I take my industry for example. The construction industry has proprietary products made for ready use which require the use of carbon emitting manufacture. Steel framing, plasterboard and concrete are just a few fo the products we use. The price of these items will go up and I can tell you I will surely pass this onto the end consumer which is the clients building these structures. If construction costs go up there is less money in the pool to go around and this affects an already weakened construction industry which is one of the last manufacturing bases in our country. Which happens to employ many of the traditional labor supporters too. The industry will reduce in output and jobs will be lost. Businesses will be lost (those are the people who employ 90% of Australias workers).

So what is a carbon tax? It is a stupid idea that does nothing but cause harm. Sure have a small tax, but put it into science and technology to change the methods of power production. Then make industry change by giving them the technology or support to make the change. Don't make a huge tax that cripples the end consumer. Technology change will help to stop emissions here.

However, nothing will make a dent in general pollution while other countries just pour more out in a single day than we do in a year. Being able to stand up at conferences and say we did this and so should you is just never going to work.

The carbon tax is an infantile idea. When the second wave of the GFC arrives here this tax will get forgotten about. We are entering a recession now, so hang on to your hats.

I hope that answers your question Trevor.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

What is a carbon tax?

In theory it is an impost designed to reduce the emissions of the end user. ie carbon tax on coal is designed to reduce the burning of this product in the generation of power and the end user (us) from being wasteful.

<snip>


I hope that answers your question Trevor.

I take your points Paul but you are essentially a supporter of a tax but just a different design - which is fair enough... but the mechanism to address this issue has been debated by all sides of the political spectrum for some time now and if we continue around in circles like this nothing will ever be done.

The opositions approach is widley regarded as inferior and worse for Australians if taken seriously, so what is one to do..?

I do not believe the ramifications of a price on carbon are anywhere near as bad as you are suggesting but I respect your opinion, it is not groundless.

A 5% reduction in CO2 production by 2020 is a pretty small target.

Cheers

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

...if we continue around in circles like this nothing will ever be done.

That assumes we all think that climate change is caused by us. I saw somewhere here that someone thought volcanoes do not produce enough CO2 because they are only one minor event. Last count was around 173 active volcanoes; that adds up to a lot more out put each day. So do we need to do anything at all? Perhaps, perhaps not. I am yet to see any single actual proof of our need to do anything. I have read a lot too and continue to do so. I am happy to be proven wrong. CO2 rises yet temperature has levelled or slightly dropped depending on which report you read.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The opositions approach is widley regarded as inferior and worse for Australians if taken seriously, so what is one to do..?

Yes interesting idea, however a little flawed. There are many who are saying otherwise but if you are not on the side of the rhetoric then you don't get a look in anyway. I know quite a few people in the sciences who question why Ross Gaurnet (spelling) was employed on all manner of reports. He is an economist not a scientist. If the oppositions stance is so bad why is it that the polls are showing otherwise? Surely not all those polled are stupid? How can taxing people be better when, it just supports more government jobs and provides little increase in service? Nah sorry, I don't really see that we need another tax, nor do I support it. However being the pragmatist I am, I can see this will happen anyway because a backdown now would be a total disaster for one party, more so that going ahead with it. If the tax does go ahead make it small and implement technology not a gravy train or an economic disaster.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

A 5% reduction in CO2 production by 2020 is a pretty small target.

Cheers

Mike

Yep take guys out of Afghanistan (we don't need to be there, terrorism is a by product of imperialism by the West and nothing more than that) and put that money into renewable energy. Every house with solar power. Keep the solar rebates scheme going instead of cutting it off. If they want to get serious about reduction in emissions, cut back waste and put money into infrastructure. If every home had solar power (no money coming back to them either) and it was given to every home the day time power consumption would drop like a rock. Power bills would go down too. If I can think of this why can't the knuckheads in Canberra do likewise? It would more than make up the 5% reductions.

Nope tax is a stupid idea. Actions speak louder than words I always say. Being an ex lawyer I know where this tax is heading and what its real effect will be. A lot more CO2 production and little to show for it in return.

Respect your opinion too Mike.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

If the oppositions stance is so bad why is it that the polls are showing otherwise? Surely not all those polled are stupid?

No not at all but when understanding of the mechanism is not there for so many and so much infantile (your words) "science" designed to fuel doubt on climate change as a reality, is being purposley fead into the debate, it is easy to scare people off a percieved increase in living costs, no matter how small.

Respect your opinion too Mike.

Cheers
ps don't admit to being lawyer, they will say anything to win an argument ..100% just joking

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

That assumes we all think that climate change is caused by us. I saw somewhere here that someone thought volcanoes do not produce enough CO2 because they are only one minor event. Last count was around 173 active volcanoes; that adds up to a lot more out put each day. So do we need to do anything at all? Perhaps, perhaps not. I am yet to see any single actual proof of our need to do anything. I have read a lot too and continue to do so. I am happy to be proven wrong. CO2 rises yet temperature has levelled or slightly dropped depending on which report you read.

I don't Know if you read one of my posts. There is a guy here in Australia who has written a paper about how climate change is caused by the amount of phosphorus in the atmosphere. A result from the bombs used in all of the wars.
This is probably a more likely cause than CO2.
CO2 is a naturally forming gas in our atmosphere and the planet has plenty of mechanisms to deal with it. As some one said plant more trees.

I don't think there is any hope of stopping wars.

Phil

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

No not at all but when understanding of the mechanism is not there for so many and so much infantile (your words) "science" designed to fuel doubt on climate change as a reality, is being purposley fead into the debate, it is easy to scare people off a percieved increase in living costs, no matter how small.




Cheers
ps don't admit to being lawyer, they will say anything to win an argument ..100% just joking

Yeah that is most likely true all all accounts. Not the first time I have been accused of that with regard to admittance.

Well if they cannot deliver the message properly what hope do they have of implementation? If they cannot explain it all to the people now, instead of just telling us "in the fullness of time" they will explain, how on earth are people going to accept the tax at all. You're right to some extent about infantile science, but it goes both ways here too. Both parties are doing a cracking job on that front. Neither actually seem to have a handle on the climate change issues. Let's not forget that rent resource is still an option if not an extra. It was just stalled, now with old Bob running the Senate that is going to be assured.

The trouble is that the words climate change have been used to mean human inflences here. The climate has changed and been changing since the atmosphere formed around the planet. Human influence makes it a tricky proposition as no one can say 100% or with any degree of certainty that humans are definitely causing the climate to change. That is essentially the problem in the implementation or selling of the idea for the tax. People just don't believe or don't know what to believe is true. However, they do know that raising a tax will influence their life style and income. Especially in light of the fact that this year power, gas, water and food have all lept in price. Not to mention interest rates. All that has a negative impact when Julie is saying it will be good for our economy. I did economics 1A and I cannot see for the life of me how that statement is true. An impost is designed for revenue raising under economic thinking. See she cannot sell the idea either. If I cannot see the reason for the tax and if they cannot sell it to me then why would I just say ok go ahead. It's a dead duck. Might as well go ahead with it, because they are on a sinking ship anyway. At least make it small and put that money directly into putting solar panels or a really large solar generator out in central Australia somewhere.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

I don't Know if you read one of my posts. There is a guy here in Australia who has written a paper about how climate change is caused by the amount of phosphorus in the atmosphere. A result from the bombs used in all of the wars.
This is probably a more likely cause than CO2.
CO2 is a naturally forming gas in our atmosphere and the planet has plenty of mechanisms to deal with it. As some one said plant more trees.

I don't think there is any hope of stopping wars.

Phil

Yes I saw that Phil, but yet to be convinced of this factor. However, yes if you are not main stream in science one is considered a quack. I bet at one stage Einstein was considered a quack too.

[avandonk]

Paul you have been misled. Volcanos have a very minor output compared to ours.
As far as temperatures remaining constant another cherry picked statistic.
It is totally wrong!
Tell me what people in the 'sciences' are the ones that you know that disagree with Garnuat. Are they all denialists?
Just because you think that more uniformed idiots are on your side does not make it correct.
The reality is we are in deep trouble. Not only are we all trashing our only planet we are also using it's natural resources at 150% above natural replenishment.
I honestly do not care about you or anybody else. You are all ruining your only home. If you are too stupid to see it. It is to your shame.
We are already past the point of no return in my opinion. I will take no joy out of being correct.

We have passed peak oil and we will soon pass peak water. The next world wide war will be fought over water. We most probably have to ride horses and camels to it as there will be no oil.

Bert

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

You're right to some extent about infantile science, but it goes both ways here too.

For me there is far far more infantile anti climate change science out there.

Neither actually seem to have a handle on the climate change issues.

Sorry, can't agree there, the government is completely in-line with relevant world wide and national bodies on this issue, the role of goverment is to listen to these sources, they provide the colating service to consolidate the research on which they can act, not polititians, news comentators or completely bias radio jocks or web sites like the one that started this thread.

The trouble is that the words climate change have been used to mean human inflences here. The climate has changed and been changing since the atmosphere formed around the planet. Human influence makes it a tricky proposition as no one can say 100% or with any degree of certainty that humans are definitely causing the climate to change.

Again you are out a little of touch here Paul, sorry, I am very happy that the consensus is unequivocal - we'll have to agree to dissagree on this

However, they do know that raising a tax will influence their life style and income.

This is the issue for sure - and mostly human nature really

Might as well go ahead with it, because they are on a sinking ship anyway.

Have to agree with that....

At least make it small

It will be!

and put that money directly into putting solar panels or a really large solar generator out in central Australia somewhere.

This will happen to a small degree straight away but eventually (hopefully) with a greater impact by natural selection once a trading scheme developes.

Mike

[CDKPhil]

Seeing we are talking about tax wasn't personal income tax taken over from the States in 1942 by the Federal Government and to be given back when the war was over? Why are we still paying income tax to the Federal Government?
Now that we have a GST shouldn't our income tax have been reduce?
Lower income tax and people would have more money to spend on renewable energy? Government would still receive the same amount of money through GST. And those of us that actually pay tax would be more financial to care about the environment rather than worrying about how we are going to pay the mortgage or the electricity bill or even food.

Phil