The carbon tax is wonderful

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.

The best thing to come out of this discussion is that we are still able (at this stage anyway in Australia) to all have an opinion. My opinion is mine and others have theirs. We can read each others and go away and form our own further ideas on the subject as mature adults. I don't feel the need to further foist my ideas on others after I have had my say because I have had my say and stand by it. I obviously am a disbeliever and doubt that I will be swayed to the other side. I have always been a tradesman and worker and had always been a Labor voter until this Carbon tax was mooted. I will never vote Labor again. Andrew Bolt sums the issue for me nicely and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The best years of Australia have come and gone and we seem to be slowly sliding down hill into a make nothing society that has sold out anything of value to overseas interests. I hope it improves for my kids sake because I have had my turn in life but they may not get a fair chance. Hopefully in the near future we will find a truthful government with somebody that is a leader to run it. We don't have that now. We just have takers and wasters and self interest pushers.

Col.

Col,

Absolutely right, and i really love that most of the people here have their say, throw ideas around and remain respectful throughout. I also really like some of the ideas that get chucked up, from both sides.

Please look at post 49 on page 4 of this thread. As I've said before I'm all for reducing pollution and enviromental impacts, but I want to see real data, I want to see cost benifit analysis, I want to see a rational case. I am not inclined to drink the coolade...

Damian

Your post #49 makes some interesting points. May I make a few comments (rhetorical), but not neccessarily in direct response to that post?

Let us assume that global warming is occuring and that CO2 is a significant contributor to that state. If that is the case we undoubtedly need to do something about it. It is true that much higher levels (many times higher in fact) of CO2 have existed before on earth in the past, but mankind wasn't walking the earth then.

So the question becomes can we continue as we are and can we survive a significant increase in temperature? My guess is yes, but not without a huge cost to mankind.

So the next question is can we do something about it and the answer again is of course we can, but not without inconvenience, a change in lifestyle and, here it comes, expense.

Expense means sacrifice.

We are not ready to change to alternative forms of power yet. We have poo pooed solar for so long despite at one time being a leading light (sorry for the pun) in solar technology and most of the other alternatives are either more expensive and less developed or have their own specific flaws.

Research is desperately needed and my understanding is that the carbon tax is the mechanism to raise money for that purpose.

Simple so far except for two problems. How well will that money be utilised for research purposes? Can Australia as a very small player in the global market afford to be market leader? Will having a CT put us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors: A disadvantage that will negate our standing in the economic world? If that sounds mercenary (and it does sound mercenary from where I am typing) I should point out there is little point in deliberately commiting financial suicide.

I am of the belief that we should have the frame work of a carbon tax in place, completely transparent and ready to be implemented as soon as the majority of other countries agree to the same or similar measures. However not before that time.

A worldwide carbon tax would have the effect of maintaining the status quo, but also raise money worldwide to tackle issues such as alternative, safe, ecological, sustainable power.

On the subject of governments, and although I know it is a slight digression to the original debate, I have to say that I am the proverbial swinging voter. This does not reflect my lifestyle incidentally :rolleyes:.

I have have however never voted for anybody. I only vote against them. I see a politician or a party in power doing the wrong thing (a subjective observation) and decide it is time for them to go. I look at the alternative and think " holy sh*t." So I revisit the original party and think "can I tolerate this any more?"

Right now I see that the federal labour party is making a right nonsence to put it mildly. But I look at the leader of the opposition and cannot bring myself to vote for that person. Having voted for Ms Gollard at the last election, I would vote Liberal in a flash if they would only change their leader. Perhaps if they brought Malcolm Turnbull back......Nah. Unlikely to happen.

Enough on political parties: It tends to make me feel ill.:(

Regards
Paul

I agree with what you have said.

I've been saying for decades that in aus governments don't win elections they lose them. Australians for the most part dislike the government whoever it is and particularly the type of people who go into politics, but as I also say they are a symptom. If the electorate truely demanded better people then better people would be elected.

The one thing perhaps I don't agree on is the proposed tax or trading model. I think the schemes that have been proposed here and overseas are poor. In the past we have legislated change and that worked. We have applied fixed transparent taxes and that has worked. I truely believe the point of divergence in this matter was when the financial industry saw a scam for exploitation. They have conned us that a Friedman-esque solution will work better than traditional Keynesian approaches, and of course they get to scam, er I mean scim commissions off the top. Trouble is older people have seem this sort of scam attempted before and have risen up in opposition to yet another conduit from their wallets to the coffers of investment banks, brokers and politicians covert bank accounts.

As I said previously we, the western world, have been dealing with pollution since at least the inception of the industrial revolution, and most of these measures have not been widely opposed, some even widely supported. If you've seen a duck before and it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you will probably suspect it's a duck.

I don't accept the case for agw has been made, but even if it were the proposed responses are IMO poor.

Ever increasing power bills and more to come thanks to CT has me thinking more about alternative energy such as solar and wind and getting away from home more regularly and thus away from power sucking appliances.

This Xmas and again in March I'm taking the family away camping. I can empty the fridge and freezer and then turn them off. I can turn the hot water system off too. Just flick the off switch on everything. That will save me something off my power bills and lower my carbon footprint via the power companies.

And while I'm away I'll be thinking (ironically) while cooking and warming by the wood camp fire of yet another new coal fired power station or other dirty polluter being commissioned somewhere in China or another economically cheap backwater to help produce goods we all demand. :roll: :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted2

And while I'm away I'll be thinking (ironically) while cooking and warming by the wood camp fire of yet another new coal fired power station or other dirty polluter being commissioned somewhere in China or another economically cheap backwater to help produce goods we all demand. :roll: :(

---

I'm afraid it is very difficult to get away from the creation of a carbon footprint.

I'll draw an analogy: We are horrified at the cost of electricity, so we go out and buy an independently powered generator thinking we are saving money. Unfortunately, even dismissing the initial cost of the generator, it is incredibly inefficient compared to that of a power station.

The carbon foot print of the wood fire is worse than if you had used electricity, although it may well be cheaper, so long as you only picked up debris and did not cut firewood with a chainsaw.

Now if you had built a small solar cooker it might be a different story, but remember to start well before the sun goes down:wink:.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am as bad as the next person. I run a slow combustion heater at home. I do it for two reasons. No make that three reasons. The fire was in the house when we bought it. I have an ample supply of firewood for the next five years (The back yard used to comprise a stock yard to contain horses). Actually it was ten years supply, but when my son spotted the rails he started grabbing them to produce his didgeridoos! Lastly I really like the style of heat produced by a slow combustion heater.

Is it good for the environment?:no::no::no:

Regards
Paul

Pretty soon they wil tax you for lighting fires as well. Think of all the carbon dioxide you produce........
They say raw food is healthier, so I guess that is the future the greens are planning for us all.
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Pretty soon they wil tax you for lighting fires as well. Think of all the carbon dioxide you produce........
They say raw food is healthier, so I guess that is the future the greens are planning for us all.
Greg

---

The future the greens are planning for us is squatting in the mud banging rocks together in a stone age slum.

Most of the rest of the world, the so called "undeveloped" world operates like that. Very enviromental, no health care, no social security, low life expectancy especially if you happen to be female, and get pregnant.

but the bears will be dancing....

CO2 is .8% of the atmosphere, and even the lunatics admit maybe 3% is human activity.

I'm extra cranky today. My knees have been playing up for the last 2 weeks and today the pain is right through me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I'm afraid it is very difficult to get away from the creation of a carbon footprint.

The carbon foot print of the wood fire is worse than if you had used electricity, although it may well be cheaper

---

That was the point I was trying to make. In trying to escape the ever increasing costs of utility bills and taxes we actually start doing things (or revert to doing things) that are more harmful to the environment in an effort to save money and stick it to the power companies and government.

There is a breaking point where people just say enough is enough " I can't afford this" (Utility bills) I need to find alternatives.

No analogy here but a true story. 3 years ago my 79 year old mum passed away. She just put herself to bed and didn't wake up again.

I was called 3 days later because neighbors hadn't seen her and curtains hadn't been opened. I let myself in and found her and the circumstances and sadness of the way she lived will always be with me.

Cut a long story short during the cleanup and removal of everything from her unit I discovered what my mum did to try and save money on heating costs.

Her bed was made up of multiple layers of more than one pair of sheets and blankets. Depending on how cold she was she would either sleep under the lot (8 blankets) or somewhere in between.

She just wouldn't or couldn't afford to run the gas heater. How many other people already live like this one can only imagine but it will get worse.

The have nots in western society are effectively being driven into an existence of frugality and improvisation and self denial of essentials and services.

There's an old saying that goes along the lines of: " You can't escape death or taxes". While most people try to avoid the latter, more and more people in trying to do so are forced into an existence where the former is a welcoming relief.

As someone else said: "Banging rocks together in the mud". Not too far from the truth. Reversion to hunter gatherer mentality to try and survive. :(

Ted2

Sorry for my misunderstanding of your post. Looks like we are of one accord:).

Sorry tohear about your mum and the circumstances of her death. I suspect this type of incident is a more frequent occurence than we would find comfortable. :(

Regards
Paul