The carbon tax is wonderful

On the issue of us voting on the CT i'm completely against that idea for a couple of reasons. First off ole uncle Kev Rudd actually won his election with an ETS as a key platform then got shafted by the libs when Abbott knifed Turnbull. So in effect we have already had this vote but without all the full on negative attack that Abbott is ohh so good at.
Secondly, i feel strongly that we need this carbon tax weather we want it or not. We all know what the outcome of a vote would be today, Abbott is just so good at spinning the negative ( thats about all he is good at IMO) & its all too easy to scare the public away from change especially this sort of huge change. Add to the mix the pretty poor job that Aunty Julia has done & the outcome is almost certainly a forgone conclusion. (while she has made some real messes shes also faced some pretty huge challenges & handled them reasonable well) There are just too many issues involved in the whole subject with too many lies being told at every turn for the average person to cut thru the crap & fully grasp the true enormous benefit to be had by moving to a clean energy based economy.
No, we NEED this carbon tax, we NEED to move away from fossil fuels & over to a cleaner, renewable from of energy. The fact is scientists have been warning us of the perils of pollution since back in the 70's. If a little more attention had been paid back then with less fear mongering the whole change over to renewables would probably be long over at a much reduced cost & much less social upheaval & with a whole slew new technologies to boot! Changing over from a fossil fuel based economy over to renewable based is going to hurt, there's no getting away from that fact. Some people are going to loose their jobs that's inevitable however there will also be a whole slew of new jobs created by the emerging technologies.
Think back to the birth of the automobile, the entire transport industry (horse & bullock) was effectively destroyed by the invention of the motor car. How many people lost their jobs, their income, their very livelyhood & at a time when there was no govt assistance, no unemployment payments, it was a simple case of adapt or die.
Unfortunately we are now in a difficult position, we need the change over away from fossil fuels to happen soon however we are all now totally addicted to fossil fuels, our entire society is completely built in it. Rapid change means a way too violent disruption to our delicately balanced way of life. So we start small by hitting the biggest polluters first then move on down the line in the hope that once we get the ball rolling the lesser polluters will fall in line before the change is forced upon them. That way the huge upheaval is lessened in its intensity. (hopefully)
This change is going to hurt, i'm not at all looking forward to the pain to come, my wife & i are just simple pensioners with no super or other assets to shield us, but i am also excited & energized by the potential that is awaiting us all. It'll be as big, if not bigger than the birth of the motor car & the industrial revolution.
I am very much a 'futurist' & i am truly excited by the potential that is just round the corner. If we all could only get on board this potential would be so much closer. However the list of challenges stacking up against all humanity it piling up at a formidable rate, the big question in my mind is who's going to win the race?

What amazes me about the CT is nothing to do with the tax at all.

We (collectively) elected a minority government and put them in a position where they would be subject to a lot of horse trading to form stable government.

Part of that horse trading resulted in the CT.

Of course, we'll never know, but we probably wouldn't have a CT now if Gillard had won a majority in her own right. Yes, she said she wouldn't have a CT if we elected her, but remember - we didn't do that.

Now, we want to pull a noose on them because we put them in the position of having to horse trade.

I think we need to grow up. :D

woodbe.

Given that a leading authority from MIT has said that even if all countries on the planet were to cease producing carbon polution today, it may be up to a 1000 years before we see any measurable reduction in the atmosphere, what is the rush. Not saying do nothing, but we have time to think it through rather than just rush to satisfy the Greens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobR

it may be up to a 1000 years before we see any measurable reduction in the atmosphere, what is the rush. Not saying do nothing, but we have time to think it through rather than just rush to satisfy the Greens.

---

Nobody is talking about reducing the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, the aim is to curb the rampent runaway climb in Co2 gases. There is a natural tendency for an increase in gases, its part of the cycle of the planetary atmosphere. Humans are accelerating that rate at an unprecedented rate. It is this increased rate that is the threat to all ecosystems including our own human ecosystem, its too fast for most ecosystems to adapt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

"Why no complaining? Why no rioting in the streets?"
Haven't you noticed all the convoys of no confidence heading for this little rural NSW town at the moment?

---

That's more-or-less my point, power bills more than doubled for vague-sounding reasons and not a peep. But a new tax? Get the pitchfork Ma, we're heading to town.

I'd have cheerfully supported a riot about paying people 60c/kWh in solar rebates, but yeah, not a peep about that either.

It's like the so-called campaign against the pokies card, "un-Australian" and all that. Gee, we're limiting your gambling to losing $120 an hour and you want more? (You only need the card to exceed the $120/h limit, if clubs program their machines to that then they don't need to participate in the whole card thing.) Disclaimer - I dislike pokies because they've almost killed live music.

I was actually surprised how much support that has, I suspect the CT has more support than people think.

The whole thing is getting very American. We do not vote in a leader. We vote in a local member and whoever can form a government does.
Another point, I bet there are a lot of workers out there who wish they could take enough time off and have enough money to cover the cost of a trip to Canberra from WA in a prime mover.
Personality cults and 'information' transmitted in ten second sound and vision bites seem to have become the norm from both sides of the political divide.
Cheers,
Jim

The rage against everything seems like a lot of fuel and time off to go and complain about the result of the last election. Must be the off season in long haul trucking demand.... Do you think it will all be claimed as operating expenses in their P&L's? I wonder if the Tax Dept is watching?

As for the Camel Tax, there was no other way the thing could be done as it is a negotiated solution between ideologically differing parties. It does resemble the GST in a number of respects most specifically the exclusions. What is most noticeable is the money thrown at opposing the tax that doesnt exist and probably wont get up anyway.

I know it's not the same but there are similarities between it and the screaming about speed cameras. Don't speed, don't get fined.
Cheers,
Jim

I've had at least 3 speeding tickets over the years where I know I wasn't speeding, and a few more where I was pretty darn sure I wasn't.

Having said that it is a greatly larger issue.

The traffic act was passed to protect road users from harm and property damage. Misdirecting that to raise revenue harms safety. Look at the data, carefully. There is no instance in the developed world where anti speeding campains brought a reduction in the road toll. Queensland is a particularly clear example. The state toll fell steadily until 98 when Beatie, looking for more revenue, brought in speed cameras and sent out the police "thou shalt book". The decline halted abruptly, the toll rose slightly and plateued for 12 years. While crashes due to speeding remained static crashes due to inattention rose.

Forgetting for a moment that I don't embrace the AGW religeon:

The proposed legislation forces companies who emit sugnifigant carbon dioxide to buy permits or reduce emmissions.

The australian scheme is set to charge $24/tonn. This isn't enough to even switch to gas let alone anything else, apart from perhapse nucleur.

Overseas permits are currently selling for much less and show no sign of rising. In fact they have been falling steadily for years. The Chicago exchange has shut down through lack of volume and a closing price of almost no $.

So in a couple of years after it's introduction the emmitters will simply buy all their permits overseas. There will be no revenue for the government to fund research, development or consumer compensation.

There will be no reduction in emmissions.

Some companies even at these low levels will shut shop in Australia and move steel making and other non geographically dependant activities overseas. Jobs will be lost.

People poorer than me will struggle to pay their bills, which will be higher than they otherwise would be. Yes electricity will go up to fund infrastrcuture costs, but it'll go up more with this impost.

It will add a cost to all businesses and will make us less productive and less competitive.

It probably won't break us, but it will impose a drag on our economy and a cost to consumers for NO gain.

It won't reduce pollution. It won't reduce global emmissions of anything, in fact it'll probably increase them since our industries are amongst the best and often the best at clean coal burning in both steel and power generation.

We have introduced effective stategies over the years to reduce pollution. These have been shown to work and never attracted the protest this has. The reason is simple, people know when they are being conned.

The problem the labour government have is that it's not the tax, it's the lie. It's blatant, really simple. JG didn't have to horse trade, she could have gone into opposition. The simple fact is they have shown they will do ANYTHING, sacrifice any principle, to stay in power. Furthermore they have made a hash of everything they have touched these last 4 years. Committee after report after review and when they finally act they make a hash of it. I cannot think of one thing labour has done right since kevin 07.

The only reason the coalition didn't win in a landslide was Tony Abbott leading the coalition. MT will never get back. Labour voters love him, everyone else wants him gone. I wouldn't be surprised if he is disendorsed at the next election.

The only reason Labour got to a hung parliment was JG's promise 4 days out. She "won" on that basis and has reniged on a blatant unambigious promise.

I agree Howard didn't win on the back of the GST, obviously, but dislike him as much as I do he at least had the credibility to be honest about it PRIOR to an election. It was the democrats who backstabbed the electorate then, and see what happened to them.

The opposition right now are agitating for an early election. That's their job. If they succeed the greens will lose half the contested senate seats and their lower house seat. Labour will be decimated although I doubt it'll be the 29 seats the polls indicate. If the parliment goes full term labours loss is still certain but will probably be less of a route.

I had traditionally voted independant and minor parties. I now vote coalition just because labour make so much trouble.

A member of this forum, who I shall not name, said to me the other day that he thought young people voted labour because they had never suffered under a labour government. Once they experienced one they woke up and switched. I thought at the time those were extremely wise words. The more I think about it the more I think he was bang on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbur

I know it's not the same but there are similarities between it and the screaming about speed cameras. Don't speed, don't get fined.
Cheers,
Jim

---

And apples are the same as oranges? They are both fruit and they both grow on trees, don't they.

I have a choice on whether I speed or not, where is my choice on a carbon tax?

Sorry, can't see any similarities.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

And apples are the same as oranges? They are both fruit and they both grow on trees, don't they.

I have a choice on whether I speed or not, where is my choice on a carbon tax?

Sorry, can't see any similarities.:no:

---

I was looking at the long picture Fred. If it works, and I'm not holding my breath either because every tax or impost creates a market for fiddling, industries that pollute will pay subject to a whole load of horse-trading and those who don't pollute won't.
The problem from a government point of view is that once you embrace free trade you have no tools left to control anything other than by imposing local taxation. No import duty on goods manufactured by world's worst practice overseas whether it be using slave labour or massive pollution etc. Important though we are (to us) we are a small player at the beck and call of every country or business that wants to use us for a gamble on currency or to dump cheap goods that result from overproduction in their own countries.
An example of the stupidity we are fed is the cost of living index. It went up partly because of the increase in banana price. As if people didn't move to cheaper oranges and apples:D
Cheers,
Jim

I suppose I should think about selling my 357 small block. But then I dont believe, nah I'll keep it :D

Quote:

---

The opposition right now are agitating for an early election. That's their job. If they succeed the greens will lose half the contested senate seats and their lower house seat. Labour will be decimated although I doubt it'll be the 29 seats the polls indicate. If the parliment goes full term labours loss is still certain but will probably be less of a rout.

---

..and this is a view held by a few labour heavy weights such as Graham Richardson. He suspects that they may go full term and sees a rout even then. But thinks that Windsor will jump ship and he doubts if Labour will last beyond next July,not my words his. I caught him on the radio driving to work the other day. Either way..... it does not bode well for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

I've had at least 3 speeding tickets over the years where I know I wasn't speeding, and a few more where I was pretty darn sure I wasn't.

---

Six tickets? You really should get that speedo checked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

The only reason the coalition didn't win in a landslide was Tony Abbott leading the coalition. MT will never get back.

---

Until UteGate, Malcolm Turnbull looked like the only one to have a clue.

The original post on this thread referred to "On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications" by Lindzen and Choi. The scientists, and they are scientists, released a report in 2009 that was heavily criticized, they went back, reviewed their findings, corrected, re-evaluated then released this one. Their findings weren't that AGW is false, but that the Climate Sensitivity Models used by the IPCC overstate the impact of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrialisation levels.

Their worst case scenario being a Global Temperature increase of 1.3 degrees C. This figure is unlikely to trigger the positive feedbacks required to facilitate many of the worst case scenarios presented previously in the Climate Change debate. I don't know enough about it to validate their findings, and the report will be subject to peer review and the scientific process, it's being hailed on the Websites that "deny" AGW as a smoking gun to prove a political global conspiracy, a "religion" in it's own right, but assuming they're correct and that their findings are accepted it removes the "immediate action" previously imposed by the likes of James Hansen et al.

OK great news! Unlikely to stop the momentum that Climate Change has gained, not a reason to halt any shift towards sustainable renewable energy
(which would take 50 years if we actually got serious about it today)
I agree with the Carbon Tax, which is completely at odds with what I've just written, but the concept of a payment to the environment for services rendered, Truth is though if we were to actually make that payment, in monetary terms it's likely to be in the vicinity of 3 times the Global Domestic Product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbur

An example of the stupidity we are fed is the cost of living index. It went up partly because of the increase in banana price. As if people didn't move to cheaper oranges and apples

---

That's not stupidity, that's how you do it.

To calculate something over time you need to use the same calculation year to year otherwise what's the point?

Oh right, 2011 was the year they took out bananas and put the iPad v1 in. Yeah it should have been the iPad2 but I think they did that next year, ok? Or did they put bananas back?

The 'basket' they use does change occasionally, but banana prices will be a single year blip, like it was last time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dropcat

Six tickets? You really should get that speedo checked.

---

Over the last 25 years. None incidentally were speed cameras. The tickets I dispute were guns or "observations".

I actually drive really slowly. Passengers often comment on how close I stick to the limit, but I am incredibly unlucky with speeding tickets. Some I've had were legitimate, but some seriously weren't. My hatred of the speed camera is a bit absurd because I get done by them much LESS than police. Only one achievment award in all these years. Maybe they have less "bias".

Pity there are still systems in place to ensure police, on or off duty, can wiggle out of a happy snap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColW

The scientists, and they are scientists, released a report in 2009 that was heavily criticized, they went back, reviewed their findings, corrected, re-evaluated then released this one.

---

I wonder what the odds are that this paper is crap as well?

They do show their bias, "CO2 has increased and it might have been us..." Y'reckon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Over the last 25 years. None incidentally were speed cameras. The tickets I dispute were guns or "observations".

---

I've had none in the last 25 years. Interesting.

nor has my partner, but she routinely drives 20 over.

CO2 has been much much higer than it is right now, long before humans let alone the industrial revolution, but then that's heracy isn't it, questioning the church....

Always makes me laugh that science can't be questioned if it supports your view, but if a scientist puts forward a contrary view they are either corrupt, insane or incompetant. The AGW faithful tell us peer reviewed papers are gospel until you show them a peer reviewed paper like this one that contradicts the faith.

The truth of course is that scientists are corrupt, insane and incompetant and the peer review process is hopelessly compromised often, but getting past the politics and the personality, the religeon and prejudice if the science is sound you can access the data and methodology and verify it for yourself. Just remember if you do you might learn something you don't want to know.

ColW, that was a good rational comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

A member of this forum, who I shall not name, said to me the other day that he thought young people voted labour because they had never suffered under a labour government. Once they experienced one they woke up and switched. I thought at the time those were extremely wise words. The more I think about it the more I think he was bang on.

---

You gotta love this type of "wisdom". If it was in any way true, we would only have ever had a labour government once. :doh:

:U

So people in your neck of the woods have stopped breeding ?

71, 83, 2007, sounds like a generational trend to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

So people in your neck of the woods have stopped breeding ?

71, 83, 2007, sounds like a generational trend to me.

---

Sure they would eventually get back in, for 1 term, but then would be out again for a long, long time (I'd guess maybe 30 or 40 years or longer) ... so how exactly does that in any way reflect reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

nor has my partner, but she routinely drives 20 over

---

Ohh, it's one of those 'spot the odd one' out games.

Me - Zero tickets
Your wife - Zero tickets
You - 6 disputed ticket out of ? total tickets.

Gosh, which one could it be? But yeah, it's someone else's fault. Just like CO2, someone else's problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Always makes me laugh that science can't be questioned if it supports your view...
...but getting past the politics and the personality, the religeon and prejudice...

---

Awesome coming from someone who has "You can choose to agree with me, or you can choose to be wrong" on the bottom of every message. So that's what an open mind looks like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

71, 83, 2007, sounds like a generational trend to me.

---

As does the opposite... Liberals losing their faith...? nah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Sure they would eventually get back in, for 1 term, but then would be out again for a long, long time (I'd guess maybe 30 or 40 years or longer) ... so how exactly does that in any way reflect reality.

---

Slow learners ? :)

Working backwards and rounding up to the nearest year:

Labour 4 years so far
Liberal 12 (edit sorry I miscounted 13)
Labour 13
Liberal 7 1/2 or 8 if you prefer
Labour 3
Coalition including a brief stint by the then country party: near enough to 23 years.
labour: lets call it 8

That takes us to 1941, beyond which it all gets a bit messy.

Of course the Menzies era was facilitated by the DLP but likewise the Hawke era was facilitated by the Howard/Peakcock nonesense.

I suppose I must be a liberal tragic, afterall I never voted for Howard, never voted coalition at the state level apart from once in the 80's when they took the parties off the ballot paper, and the last election just because anything has to be better than Bligh. I have voted liberal at council level but that's because our councillor is tremendous and gets 87 - 92% of the primary vote every election. I don't THINK I ever voted liberal prior to Howard but can't be 100% certain.

I do know I've never voted labour. Occasionally they will get up the ranks above the most lunatic fringe candidates, but they are always well buried in the big numbers.

I'd never suggest the coalition achieve GOOD government, but compared to the basket cases we've got at state and federal level now a pack of rabid dingoes would be better.

Anyway....

Damien, I'm not exactly sure what your point is in that last bit, but you seem to be saying that your original quote (below) doesn't hold water and the figures you quoted don't even support it.

I'm sorry mate, but that pearl of "wisdom" reminds me of those emails everyone gets every now and then espousing the virtues of the "good old days" or how welfare recipients make out like bandits or some other such "wisdom". It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or a sense of smugness, or whatever, but unfortunately it doesn't stand up to any sort of close scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

A member of this forum, who I shall not name, said to me the other day that he thought young people voted labour because they had never suffered under a labour government. Once they experienced one they woke up and switched. I thought at the time those were extremely wise words. The more I think about it the more I think he was bang on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Damien, I'm not exactly sure what your point is in that last bit, but you seem to be saying that your original quote (below) doesn't hold water and the figures you quoted don't even support it.

I'm sorry mate, but that pearl of "wisdom" reminds me of those emails everyone gets every now and then espousing the virtues of the "good old days" or how welfare recipients make out like bandits or some other such "wisdom". It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or a sense of smugness, or whatever, but unfortunately it doesn't stand up to any sort of close scrutiny.

---

No worries. I often don't explain myself as well as I could. I was making 2 points.

The first is that since the war the coalition has held government for much longer than labour. Further I would contend that the periods under the coalition have been more stable than those under labour. I didn't state that specifically and to detail the evidence for that assertion would take a while.

My second point is that I'm far from a one eyed coalition supporter. In fact I'd very much like a third (better?) force to arise in Australian politics. For a while it might have been the democrats but we know how that ended. It certainly won't be the greens unless they get a total group brain transplant.

The reason I think the origional suggestion is correct is that at least in my life time the periods under federal labour seem to have been filled with economic and social upheval, negative outcomes for the majority of people. It's easy, really easy, to dislike coalition leaders. I couldn't type here what I think of Fraser for example, but I think in my experience they make far better more equitable governments, and I think each generation of the electorate after experimenting with a labour government for a term or two go back.

Prepared to believe I'm wrong but from 41 on the coalition have been in far more than out, and while I haven't counted I think that's true even if you discount Menzies.

I agree with you about those emails, but I see them as a laugh not a reliable historical document :) and it's always good to remind young people they didn't invent sex, recycling, fun..or whatever they are laying claim to this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Further I would contend that the periods under the coalition have been more stable than those under labour.

---

...and I would point out that it doesn't matter who's running the country, much of the stability/unstability is simply due to timing.

WWII? Bloody National Party. Ah, Liberals again. And Labour won WWII, awesome.
Vietnam? Liberals. Always starting bloody wars.
Oil shock? Damn Liberals. Probably Labor. Hell, blame both of them.
GFC? That was Labor's fault, wasn't it?

Not that that stops any of them from taking credit or blaming the other lot.

[QUOTE=Dropcat;1366238
Vietnam? Liberals. Always starting bloody wars.
.[/QUOTE]

Mister the liberal party didn't start the veitnam war and my guess is that you didn't have any involvement there

I lost mates there and I don't like your throwaway line that the Australian liberal party started that war, to me that is offencive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Mister the liberal party didn't start the veitnam war

---

Nor did they start WWII. World events are out of our control.

To simplify things: no political party is to blame when things go wrong - it is always outside their control. All political parties take the credit when things go right - because either they are in power or did the right thing when they were in power.:D
Cheers,
Jim

Isn't the Carbon Tax just a GST rise by stealth. They cannot increase the GST, All the money in reserve has been doled out to buy big screen tvs so to get some back the Gov't and the Reds I mean Greens have come up with a fantasy to tug at the heart strings and come up with the Carbon Tax. The country is buggered and will only get worse with this lot of dictatorial nungas running the show. We were all going to die from the hole in the ozone layer a few years ago and the Y2K bug meant certain doom.
Come in suckers..............

I feel better now.

Col.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Col

They cannot increase the GST,
We were all going to die from the hole in the ozone layer a few years ago
Y2K bug meant certain doom.
Come in suckers.....
I feel better now.

---

Having a good crap does that.

There is nothing stopping anyone changing GST (up or down).

The hole in the ozone layer is still there. Banning CFC stopped the hole getting bigger. It it gradually getting smaller after the ban (~1985-1995).

Y2K would had stuffed your day, but you would have survived it. Eventually. I fixed quite a bit of stuff.

Good job bringing up the ozone layer damage, the denial arguments against it were exactly the same as against CO2 now, and by the same people even (Google James Singer).

Dropcat,

Please don't misunderstand my intent. Your entirely entitled to your opinion and I of all people are in no position to to tell someone not to express it ..

but:

It would be very much better all round if you would read carefully the posts your responding to, understand what people are and are not saying and respond accordingly.

I am prepared to believe I am misreading your posts but it just seems to me you are reading things into what people are trying to say and responding fairly bluntly to that.

I don't own this forum, I am not a moderator, I have no power and I am not trying to put you down.

It is possible your fairly new here and don't understand the history of some of the discussions. Many of the people here sort of "know" one another and where we are coming from. We were having a chat, a bit of a dig, and tossing some ideas around.

I had taken the approach of ignoring your posts hoping you'd catch on eventually, but some others are responding and I'd rather this didn't become unhappy. The trouble with type is you only get a small part of the communication you'd get with tone and body language so it doesn't always come across as intended.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbur

To simplify things: no political party is to blame when things go wrong - it is always outside their control. All political parties take the credit when things go right - because either they are in power or did the right thing when they were in power.:D
Cheers,
Jim

---

Chuckles. Quite right, that's how they would like it.

Having said that though like steering a boat you do have some control even when the currents are strong and how well you prepare and react are legitimate issues for the electorate to judge. Also of course if a government does take credit for the successes then it's perfectly legitimate to judge them on failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Col

Isn't the Carbon Tax just a GST rise by stealth. They cannot increase the GST, All the money in reserve has been doled out to buy big screen tvs so to get some back the Gov't and the Reds I mean Greens have come up with a fantasy to tug at the heart strings and come up with the Carbon Tax. The country is buggered and will only get worse with this lot of dictatorial nungas running the show. We were all going to die from the hole in the ozone layer a few years ago and the Y2K bug meant certain doom.
Come in suckers..............

I feel better now.

Col.

---

Glad u feel better Col.
I have to say tho that i disagree with just about everything u just said.
A CT isn't a GST in disguise, its an attempt, a beginning, to make businesses/ people pay for the mess they make in the process of doing business. I don't think thats too much to ask. If that means the price of goods go up a little, & i mean a very little, then so be it. If you make a mess in business or private life sooner or later you have to clean it up or pay for it - that's the way it should be!
No idea what big screen TV's have to do with anything other than carbon is produced in their construction.
As for the greens, the reason they now have a prominent position in Australian politics today is because a sizable chunk of the Aussie population fully supports their views. To call them 'reds' is quite an insult to a large number of Australians, me included! Like it or not, the Australian population is moving to a cleaner, 'greener', more responsible toward our environment mind set. - the sooner the better IMO!!
As Dropcat mentioned, the hole in the ozone has stopped growing. Have u seen all the 'slip slop slap' type advertising encouraging us all to protect ourselves from UV radiation & melanomas? You can thank the hole in the ozone for the massive rise in skin cancers - & all the CFC's we pumped into the atmosphere. Interstingly i remember hearing heaps of the same being negative nay saying over the hole in the ozone back then, interesting how it was proven right.
The Y2K bug? Well its because of all the media hype & doom & gloom leading up to Y2K that stopped the #### from hitting the fan. The fact is that Y2K could very easily have been disastrous for the business industry if the issue wasn't addressed. There was no certain way to know for sure just how bad it could have been - easy however when you have hindsight. Sure it was never going to be as bad as they said, at least not for the average domestic user, anyone in the computer industry was saying just that. But we humans can be darn hard to move into action sometimes & it takes a little over the top 'hyping' to get things done.
So i guess you are right in a way, the CT is a bit like the hole in the ozone Y2K, there is no way to know for certain that is right or how bad the effects of a further increase in Co2 & yes maybe its being over hyped - thats how our media works isn't it? Maybe the only way to get people to change their comfy lives to a system that is fundamentally better for everyone in the long run is to hype things a little.
The long term benefits to society by doing something now moving us to a cleaner renewable energy future are so profound so necessary for the future advancement of ALL humans on the planet is absolutely worth the cost & pain inflicted in the change.

Now i feel much much better!:2tsup:

RT, if the carbon tax was designed to make polluting businesses pay for their "bad behaviour" then perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

However, the businesses won't pay the carbon tax, they just pass it on to their customers, a fact already acknowledged by JG by announcing "compensation" payments, in some cases in excess of the estimated cost to consumers.

So, if businesses are not really affected, because they pass the cost on, how will the carbon tax modify their "bad behaviour"? The end consumer also won't pay for it, they get compensated by the government.

So, who pays, and who modifies their behaviour?

Seems like the old "thimble and the pea" tirck.:roll:

At least Bob B seems happy, and that makes a change after all his years of whining.:2tsup:

I'm not sure i agree with your premise Big S, while the cost will no doubt be initially passed on to consumers, businesses will also look to other ways to offset their carbon footprint as well as methods to actually cut their carbon outputs. It will actually make good business sense to minimize carbon output once the scheme is up & running. It really comes down to how the system is managed, weather legitimate alternatives are made available & attractive to businesses. Admittedly the current Labor/greens govt hasn't done a particularly good job of managing things but at least they recognize that something needs to be done!

Sorry RT, not my premise, but JG's. She is the one offering, and pushing, the compensation package, thereby absolving industry of needing to find ways to reduce the amount of carbon tax they pay.

Very woolly economic thinking, but par for the course for both Labor and the Greens.

I get where you're coming from now Big S but the compensation package is set to scale back over a few years thereby easing the shock.