That only goes to show you how ill considered and knee jerking their decisions are regarding this. It's also a peculiarity of German politics as well, with the Greens having a very large say in what goes on in the Bundesrat.
I didn't know you were an expert in German politics!
A 30 year reacton is stretching the definition of knee-jerk though, especially for a country that was effected by chernobyl in 1986 and has a considerable history with anti-nuclear protests
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.
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.
And; market forces have lead to where power, gas and water are at their all time lowest due to idea of free markets make for cheaper commodities. If you speak to any person in SA about things being cheaper since privatisation (and this is going to be like it once carbon trading comes into force) you might end up with something attached to you that was not there before. Markets deciding things is an inherently flawed assumption of capitalism. Many years in the future people will look up this idea I am sure as purely stupid (that being market forces controlling the price and that more players make for cheaper commodities). Sorry still not convinced. Put money into things for the people, not trading with gas.
oh dear, can I sell anybody a bridge and a small music hall. A tax on carbon is the only way we can get our Multi-Nationals to do something. We didn't get smoking rates down by saying it ws bad for you...Taxation pushing the price had a far greater effect.
If you think that when faced with the option of a fuel source that was cheap but had health effects on it's users and one the was dearer but was safe then history has shown that Market forces will choose option a every time.
Market forces do not select the best path it chooses the most profitable one. That is why no Government in the world not even the Yanks want a unregulated market system.
Yep, getting a big head I see. Which pollie said: "we were on the edge of the cliff but since then we made a huge leap forward." Same logic as the clowns in power now.
.....Market forces do not select the best path it chooses the most profitable one. ....
Agreed. So we need some form of regulation.
How is: taxing people on over $80k and giving it to those on lower incomes, or shipping cheap coal/LNG to China, while we pay through the nose for it, going to reduce global CO2 emissions?
I'd prefer to see some realistic base-load technologies identified (eg Hot Dry Rocks, Thermal Solar ) then supported directly (I'd have no problem with an across-the-board tax) , as once the infrastructure is in, sunshine and geothermal heat is pretty cheap!
One must also ask will the corporations that are taxed actually do something to reduce emissions or simply pass the tax on to consumers via price rises and will the Govt regulate so this doesn't happen
One must also ask will the corporations that are taxed actually do something to reduce emissions or simply pass the tax on to consumers via price rises and will the Govt regulate so this doesn't happen
Of course that is exactly what is going to happen. The power companies and all the others will pass it on. The consumers will always fork out the bill in the end. And I have a sneaking suspicion all the CT money will end up in the govt pockets to resurface again in two years just on time to splash the voters for another BS run before for the election or even better, narrowing down the deficit they made to look good. You wait and see.
over 30 years ago now (i think), my brother bought a block of land at Tabulam (xelasnave country)
he was the first to buy in the street
to get the electricity on was going to cost an arm and a leg
so he decided to compromise and be a bit self sufficient
he has a wood stove (which heats his water - and mostly runs 24 hrs a day)
all his wood is scavenged from fallen trees that need to be moved from where they fell
he has 12 volt lighting and a 12 volt car radio (no tv) that runs off battery charged from solar panels.
to cut up his wood he has a bloody big petrol driven saw and splitter
he has a petrol generator to run his power tools when needed and his washing machine
he refuses to cut down any more trees on his 200 acres than is needed to protect his house from bushfire
GEE i wish there were a few more people like my big brother
And; market forces have lead to where power, gas and water are at their all time lowest due to idea of free markets make for cheaper commodities. If you speak to any person in SA about things being cheaper since privatisation (and this is going to be like it once carbon trading comes into force) you might end up with something attached to you that was not there before. Markets deciding things is an inherently flawed assumption of capitalism. Many years in the future people will look up this idea I am sure as purely stupid (that being market forces controlling the price and that more players make for cheaper commodities). Sorry still not convinced. Put money into things for the people, not trading with gas.
I'm not suggesting market forces are the be all and end all and nor do I believe that the choice between private and public is always clear cut. However in the case of alternative energy we're talking about new technologies and it's my belief that the carbon tax will go some way towards providing alternative energy startups with a level playing field to compete with the fossil fuel industry whereas before there was none.
The fact remains that fossil fuels will always be cheaper than alternative energy sources, at least for the forseeable future. The present system of subsidising the alternative energy industries simply does not work and the only way to resolve this is trying to make the fossil fuel industry begin to pay in the same way that other industries are required to pay for putting pollutants into the environment.
Of course that is exactly what is going to happen. The power companies and all the others will pass it on. The consumers will always fork out the bill in the end. And I have a sneaking suspicion all the CT money will end up in the govt pockets to resurface again in two years just on time to splash the voters for another BS run before for the election or even better, narrowing down the deficit they made to look good. You wait and see.
I've no doubt that the power companies will pass it on. As such business and households will try to find ways of reducing their power bills. Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does.
Many years ago companies had rooms full of clerical assistants. Computers came along and replaced those clerical assistants. Now we have rooms full of IT people.
Yep, getting a big head I see. Which pollie said: "we were on the edge of the cliff but since then we made a huge leap forward." Same logic as the clowns in power now.
...the Barnaby and Abbott circus
OK, ok, enough's enough, hit me back and then we'll call it quits
[QUOTE=Eternal;743676]I've no doubt that the power companies will pass it on. As such business and households will try to find ways of reducing their power bills. Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does.
This is the 21st century people shouldn't be forced to revert to putting on piles of clothes to keep warm or being uncomfortable when it's hot just to save power
I've no doubt that the power companies will pass it on. As such business and households will try to find ways of reducing their power bills. Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does.
This is the 21st century people shouldn't be forced to revert to putting on piles of clothes to keep warm or being uncomfortable when it's hot just to save power
But I know people and I am sure you do too that have their aircon on 24/7 365 days of the year surely this is not needed. Either cooling or heating
Last edited by supernova1965; 15-07-2011 at 05:03 PM.
So do I. One of my work mates used to have his aircon running most of the time. His family was generally only at home between 7pm and 7am but they didn't like coming home and waiting for the house to warm or cool so they left it running all of the time. Not just in the rooms they used either, in every room of their two story mcmansion. They also ran the pool heater all year round even though they never used it unless it was more than 30 degrees outside. When asked why he was so wasteful his answer "because I can".
But I know people and I am sure you do too that have their aircon on 24/7 365 days of the year surely this is not needed. Either cooling or heating
I think you are making a lot of assumptions here Warren. I have a 93 year old mother who would fall into the category you are talking about. At 93 her body is not capable of controlling it's core temprature as well as yours and after working for 50 years why shouldn't she be comfortable, after all near every big office building in the country runs it's climate control system 24/7 even when empty.
I think the overall thought of improving the world we live in is a great idea but to impose a new tax on a very limitted few is a very unrealistic approach to fixing whatever aills us.
Education and inovation is the key to improvements in our world not the imposition of a new tax.
Companies all over Australia are running round like headless chooks trying to work out how they can get hold of this money. They are starting new departments to just fathom out how when and where.
To say that this will lead to new inovation within our power industry is rubbish. Most of the money will be absorbed in management and operational costs.
I work for an energy company which has been one of the leaders in renewable energy development for many years and new sections and departments have already been established to absorb this windfall for them. The big question is how much will actually hit the table and go into inovation or will we just see more of the same.
A tax on the working rich sounds good but the sit at home bludgers of the world will still just sit back and have a ball with no incentive to do anything. There are much bigger problems to overcome than Australias tiny involvement in climate change.
We treat our pensioners worse than we treat terrorists. At least a terrorist in jail gets 3 square meals a day.
Time Australia looked seriously at the way we are governed or should I say overgoverned. Local shires, State governments, Fedral Government. Lots of government but not a whole lot to show for it. Most of our minerals go offshore, gas goes offshore, wood goes offshore, seems like we are being raped of our natural resources and government just sit back and allow it to happen and when they need another dollars for another luncheon with an Indian or Chinese diplomat the slug our workers with another tax.
I, for one am sick of paying for some shinny arses lunch each day. Over my entire working life have NEVER received a cent from Government towards any of my expences. I have always earned too much to get any hand outs but can honestly say I have paid plenty towards others hand outs.
I have worked long hours, educated my children to benifit this country, have paid significant tax throughout the years and am sick of being part of the Governments bank balance and lunch money.
........Whereas before the idea of adopting alternative energy sources such as solar, wind or hydrogen fuel cells had no business case, now it suddenly does..............people shouldn't be forced to revert to putting on piles of clothes to keep warm or being uncomfortable when it's hot just to save power
Agreed, artificially making the cost of power higher through a tax is a very odd way to make it cheaper.
I have yet to see a case as to why should Australians pay more for their coal fired energy than users of the same caol, eg. China.
Australian R&D has been chronically underfunded by successive governments...who shold hang their heads in shame on this front.
Seems we are happy to pay footballers 6 digit salaries, while young Ph.d students and even post Don's...people who have the potential to really change the nation's energy production methods, get paid peanuts by comparasion.
Isnt it interesting tho, how you can have such polarized view points in these types of debates. One side sees the absolute solution ineffective but money grabbing slant and the other sees the exact opposite all totally committed in their opinions.
I didn't know you were an expert in German politics!
A 30 year reacton is stretching the definition of knee-jerk though, especially for a country that was effected by chernobyl in 1986 and has a considerable history with anti-nuclear protests
I like to keep my eye on different countries parliaments and what's happening. Especially in places where I have rellies. But, I'm no "expert". I just have a fairly keen interest in what's going on. So please, no more throwaway lines.
And do you know why the anti-nuclear movement in Germany was/is so strong?? The present reaction is hardly a 30 year movement of opinion about nuke reactors. Despite their nervousness about nukes, actually in the last 40 or more years, they still built nuclear plants. However, since the Green Party in Germany has had some influence in the politics of the country, the push towards no nukes has gathered pace. They already had a schedule with the decommissioning of older nuclear plants and the eventual replacement of all of them. Now, since Fukushima, that's been rapidly pushed along because of the reaction to the way the plants handled the disaster. Fair enough, but a little hasty if you ask me.
So, what are they going to replace them with....coal and gas fired plants. How "smart" or "green" is that!!!!. Rip out the nukes, only to replace them with the technology that's causing all the trouble and the angst so far as everything else is concerned. Really stupid.
Last edited by renormalised; 15-07-2011 at 10:45 AM.
From my point of view you're living in another dimension.
Yep, getting a big head I see. Which pollie said: "we were on the edge of the cliff but since then we made a huge leap forward." Same logic as the clowns in power now. 
