The carbon tax is wonderful

[damian]

I was wrong about the carbon tax. It's a great idea. New Zealand have had theirs only 18 months and look what it's already done...

Snow falls in Auckland for first time in decades - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10745187)

clearly they have that nasty global warming, oops I mean climate CHANGE, oops I mean "clean energy future" on the run.

On a more serious note this paper soon to be published here

APJAS :: Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (http://apjas.org/)

might shake a few trees.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

[Big Shed]

Damian, better prepare yorself for some negative feed back in your reputation:doh:

The last time I put up a (light hearted) thread like that (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/just-well-we-have-global-warming-136094/#post1325550) I got a "reddy" from one of our members (devoid of a sense of humour), that said, and I quote, "Learn the difference between weather and climate", so there.

It appears that climate change is not to be the subject of humour, bit like religion really:rolleyes:

[Ashore]

Got my coffee , might get a pizza in and watch the fun

[Wongo]

I hope the carbon tax will encourage (or force) people to consume less energy. The way we live is not sustainable and it has to change.

Ashore, get me a BBQ supreme:2tsup:

[DavidG]

Meat lovers please.

[m2c1Iw]

Wongo can I have all your power tools especially the :secret:
when you start using less power. :D

[underfoot]

The way we live is not sustainable and it has to change.

...meh...my grandkids will sort out the mess...

[Wongo]

Wongo can I have all your power tools especially the :secret:
when you start using less power. :D

I said use less not don't use any at all. Now stop using those childish arguments.


No you can't have my Domino. :U

[damian]

Damian, better prepare yorself for some negative feed back in your reputation:doh:

It appears that climate change is not to be the subject of humour, bit like religion really:rolleyes:

I doubt very much there are any "true believers" left on the forum who are not yet aware of my position on climate change. If there are do me a favour and read over the many previous threads on the matter before trying to preach to me again.

Wongo:

I agree we live an unsustainable lifestyle and I agree it would be good if we could reduce pollution and consumption of resources.

[DavidG]

The carbon tax will greatly reduce carbon emissions from Australia.

Yes - The companies involved will move to none carbon tax countries and continue on.

[Sturdee]

Just in case you get a reddie I'll give you a greenie to preempt it. :D And Big Shed you get one too. :D


Peter.

[artme]

I've said it before - climate debate aside it is well past time that we stopped trashing our home!! :C

[Christos]

I actually agree with a carbon tax.

There are other questions that we need to look at.

Can we afford it? Maybe not.

Should we be paying for it? Yes.

Can it be avoided? Not sure.

Is there something else? That I leave open for discussion.

[underfoot]

I see the biggest problem with the 'carbon tax' is simply a matter of semantics....
Call it a 'pollution tax' and explain to the panicking public that all it means is that the biggest polluters pay to help cleanup the mess they make...
just like many other countries do.......simple really

[NCArcher]

Well said Undie :2tsup: You can have a greenie for that one.

[jimbur]

It appears that climate change is not to be the subject of humour, bit like religion really:rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with religion that a few miracles wouldn't cure:D
Cheers,
Jim

[Big Shed]

Just in case you get a reddie I'll give you a greenie to preempt it. :D And Big Shed you get one too. :D


Peter.

Thank you Peter, very magnanimous of you:2tsup:

Absolutely amazing how fanatical, petty and narrow minded some people can be:(

[underfoot]

Absolutely amazing how fanatical, petty and narrow minded some people can be:(
agreed....
now back to the topic....
what is the problem with polluting industries covering the cost of cleaning up after themselves :?
..is it because the cost may be passed down the line to us?....well duh.

[Big Shed]

As far as I can see there is no problem with getting polluting companies to clean up after themselves, in fact I'd go a step further and I would like to see ALL polluters clean up after themselves, not just a few carefully targeted companies.

It is how we achieve this that is important and I am not at all convinced that putting a tax on a relatively small number of companies is going to achieve anything, other than to export our emissions and jobs to China.

I also have a real problem with a Prime Minister making these decisons purely to stay in power, under pressure from a (very) minor party, particularly after stating categorically duing her election campaign that "there will be no carbon tax".

By all means do something about carbon emissions, but in a democracry we are entitled to vote based on true information, not blatant untruths.

[Bob38S]

...

By all means do something about carbon emissions, but in a democracry we are entitled to vote based on true information, not blatant untruths.


What a novel idea - as we live in a democracy - we could have a referendem or better still - Let's have an election on this issue and let the people speak. :doh:

Don't really understand why the pollies haven't thought of this :roll:

[Greg Ward]

Yeah,
I know there will be a few issues with rising sea levels, but I still can't wait to see the Gold Coast go under.
Greg

[artme]

Yeah,
I know there will be a few issues with rising sea levels, but I still can't wait to see the Gold Coast go under.
Greg

Why, so the criminals can go elsewhere?

[Greg Ward]

And the Sydney harbourside mansions

Greg

[Wongo]

That's OK Mosman can go down as long as it doesn't overflow the river across the road from my house. :U

[wheelinround]

That's OK Mosman can go down as long as it doesn't overflow the river across the road from my house. :U


You should be used to boating though Wongo :boat:

[Greg Ward]

Wongo has enough tas blackwood timber to build an ark, and I can get someone to do one in the red cedar at Cremorne.
Just as the beautiful Julia says: 'Bring it on..... Bring it on......'
Greg

[wheelinround]

Wongo has enough tas blackwood timber to build an ark, and I can get someone to do one in the red cedar at Cremorne.
Just as the beautiful Julia says: 'Bring it on..... Bring it on......'
Greg


If the sea level reaches that high Greg you'll have your own anchorage, fishing deck. Gone will be Manly to Palm Beach, Parrarmatta low lying areas of Banskstown, Punchbowl will at last look like one.

[Greg Ward]

More seas mean more fishing.
More water means more rain
We may at last get that inland sea the early explorers were seeking.
It all sounds pretty good to me.
Especially the bit about the Gold Coast .........
And Wongo's ark.... he already made a few small boats, now he gets to make the real thing and imagine the beautiful joints.
Greg

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

By all means do something about carbon emissions, but in a democracry we are entitled to vote based on true information, not blatant untruths.

Huh?

In a democracy we are entitled to vote based on our opinions/beliefs.

We also have the right to ask for facts. But beyond that? :no:

[Big Shed]

Huh?

In a democracy we are entitled to vote based on our opinions/beliefs.

We also have the right to ask for facts. But beyond that? :no:

Nope, not "entitled" to vote, it is compulsory.

We may have the right to ask for facts, we don't seem to have the right to receive honest answers:no:

[Dropcat]

I agree we live an unsustainable lifestyle and I agree it would be good if we could reduce pollution and consumption of resources.

Isn't that what the carbon tax is supposed to do?

Weird how we survived a 10% GST but the carbon tax will kill us all. How about we have the carbon tax and scrap GST? Everyone happy then?

[Ashore]

Isn't that what the carbon tax is supposed to do?

Weird how we survived a 10% GST but the carbon tax will kill us all. How about we have the carbon tax and scrap GST? Everyone happy then?
Just a couple of questions Dropcat , were any taxes removed when the GST came in
Is the money collected by the GST spent in Australia,
And didn't Howard go to an election with the intention of introducing the GST anounced before that election :?

[Dropcat]

Just a couple of questions Dropcat , were any taxes removed when the GST came in
Is the money collected by the GST spent in Australia,
And didn't Howard go to an election with the intention of introducing the GST anounced before that election :?

Sure, sales tax (most) vanished. Prices still went up though...

Not sure that the point of the other two bits is. GST stays in Aust as does the carbon tax, (but GST isn't applied to exports but CT is), and who cares who introduced GST?

[m2c1Iw]

GST stays in Aust as does the carbon tax, (but GST isn't applied to exports but CT is), and who cares who introduced GST?

Um not all the carbon tax will not stay in Australia it is proposed to purchase offsets overseas.
I'd perhaps suggest do some research into the subject.
The point was Howard went to an election to allow the public to decide.

[Dropcat]

Um not all the carbon tax will not stay in Australia it is proposed to purchase offsets overseas.
I'd perhaps suggest do some research into the subject.
The point was Howard went to an election to allow the public to decide.

Fair enough on the offsets, but the point was cost of exported goods.

And I don't recall a referendum being held on whether to introduce a GST. I must have been asleep that day.

No-one voted for a GST, they votes for a party that had introduction of a GST as one of their policies (which also included keeping those brown people where they belong).

[m2c1Iw]

OK so how is increasing the cost of exports a good thing.

No you were not asleep.

Yes that's correct the party that went to an election with the GST as a policy won it. What were Julia's words again "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" therein lies the problem Bob Brown actually leads the government.

And no I won't enter a race debate.

[Dropcat]

OK so how is increasing the cost of exports a good thing.
Yes that's correct the party that went to an election with the GST as a policy won it. What were Julia's words again "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" therein lies the problem Bob Brown actually leads the government.
And no I won't enter a race debate.

Yeah, prices going up is a bad thing. Exports prices have gone up recently anyway, let's regulate the dollar again.

You can't single out GST as a vote winner, after all who in their right mind would vote for a tax? The election was won for other reasons.

And never mind about politicians changing their minds, that's what they do. Dunno why people are so surprised. As you pointed out the Howard wasn't going to have a GST either, just in his case an election came before its introduction date. (Still it did take him a while to change his mind).

I'm more bemused than anything by this whole 'debate', why anyone actually gives a rats left testicle is beyond me.

Say the carbon tax increases your power bill. Ignoring tax cuts & other bribes, how much would be too much before you march on Parliament and burn it to the ground? 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?

People seem not to have noticed that power bills have increased by over 100% (ie double!) in the past few years. What's the current increase, 20%?

Why no complaining? Why no rioting in the streets? Why no passionate 'debate' about the increases?

Weird.

Think I'll go play with lathe.

[m2c1Iw]

Why no complaining? Why no rioting in the streets? Why no passionate 'debate' about the increases?

No rioting but there is a fair bit of heated debate/protest especially from normally quiet middle aust (OK perhaps more the blue rinse set):rolleyes:


Think I'll go play with lathe.
Yep this subject gets boring quickly might as well wait till the next election, now that will be interesting to see how the libs handle the CT. :D

[Dropcat]

Yep this subject gets boring quickly might as well wait till the next election, now that will be interesting to see how the libs handle the CT.

Probably double the rate & build more coal powered stations.

It's amusing to see the arguments & positions follow exactly the same path that the 'hole in the ozone layer' went along.

Australia need less 'debate' and more 'pulling finger out of rear ends'.

We could have nuclear power here in 5 years, that's how long it takes to build a plant. They come in kit form these days, hopefully with a manual. It's not like we're short of the 'glow in the dark' stuff.

We gave solar cell production to the Chinese, nice going there.

How about funding geothermal?

Or research in commercialising aerogel, with that as insulation you wouldn't have much of a power bill.

[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? Some twit is sure to do something stupid and you could have your riot. Anyway they have the powers that be so worried that we have been told to keep of the roads during peak times tomorrow.

Regards

[Rattrap]

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?

[woodbe]

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.

[BobR]

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.

[Rattrap]

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.

[Dropcat]

"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.

[jimbur]

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

[Sebastiaan56]

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.

[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

[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.

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.

[Big Shed]

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:

[jimbur]

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

[hughie]

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




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.

[Dropcat]

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.


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.

[ColW]

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.

[Dropcat]

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.

[damian]

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.

[Dropcat]

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?

[Dropcat]

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.

[damian]

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.

[Vernonv]

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

[damian]

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

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

[Vernonv]

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.

[Dropcat]

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.



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.

[Dropcat]

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

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

[damian]

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....

[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.


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.

[damian]

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.

[Dropcat]

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.

[Ashore]

[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

[Dropcat]

Mister the liberal party didn't start the veitnam war

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

[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

[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.

[Dropcat]

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).

[damian]

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.

[damian]

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.

[Rattrap]

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:

[Big Shed]

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:

[Rattrap]

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!

[Big Shed]

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.

[Rattrap]

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.

[Col]

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.

[damian]

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...

[Bushmiller]

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

[damian]

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.

[Ted2]

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: :(

[Bushmiller]

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

[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

[damian]

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.

[Ted2]

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. :(

[Bushmiller]

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

[SDB777]

I thought trees needed carbon to grow.....so we reduce the carbon and watch the trees die?


We already went through the Carbon Tax thing here in the States....see where all our jobs went. Don't worry, your jobs will follow ours there as well. Carbon tax = Al Gore getting rich.





Scott B

[Big Shed]

I thought trees needed carbon to grow.....so we reduce the carbon and watch the trees die?


We already went through the Carbon Tax thing here in the States....see where all our jobs went. Don't worry, your jobs will follow ours there as well. Carbon tax = Al Gore getting rich.





Scott B

Wasn't aware that the US had a carbon tax, when and how was that implemented?

Al Gore, isn't he the guy who uses 4 times as much energy as any other "normal" family?:doh:

[artme]

I have serious doubts about the carbon tax moving jobs off shore.

Low wges in China and the high Aus$ do a much better job of that. I think the same was true for the US.

[damian]

Many people outside the US fail to distinguish between state and federal government. Our states defer to teh federal government and their are set role for each to some extent. In the US and Canada the federal government does not automatically overrule the states, so for example the US does have gun laws just not federal ones, and several states have implemented a carbon trading scheme which is failing spectacularly.

The chicago exchange set up a trading floor for carbon thinking it was on a winner. They shut it down about 2 months ago, no volume virtually no price. Like I've said the brokers and other miscellaneous thieves in the finance industry saw the carbon thing as a great platform to rob us, but thier plans have been thwarted by the middle aged middle class who've seen these scams too many times before.

[artme]

Just went back through some replies here at random.

Seems that some are confusing a carbon tax with an emissions or carbon trading scheme.

They are not the same animal even though the intended result may be the same.

With a trading scheme you can choose to participate or not.

You cannot avoid a tax.

[Vernonv]

You cannot avoid a tax.Just don't turn on that light/TV/spa pump/clothes drier, etc, etc.

[bluegum30]

''Just don't turn on that light/TV/spa pump/clothes drier, etc, etc.''

my thoughts exactly .:D

[Bob38S]

And so it begins -

- get your wallet out -

- learn to walk lopsided as it is difficult to walk properly when the government has its hand in your pocket.

Council rubbishes the carbon tax | Fraser Coast News | Local News in Fraser Coast | Fraser Coast Chronicle (http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/story/2011/09/22/the-carbon-tax-is-going-to-hurt-fraser-coast-resid/)

[damian]

Just went back through some replies here at random.

Seems that some are confusing a carbon tax with an emissions or carbon trading scheme.

They are not the same animal even though the intended result may be the same.

With a trading scheme you can choose to participate or not.

You cannot avoid a tax.

Not sure I understand you. They are two similar mechanisms aimed at the same outcome.

If your one of the top 200 or whatever it is generators of CO2 in Australia every ton of carbon dioxide you emit into the atmosphere has to be paid for either by buying a permit or paying a fixed levy/tax/whatever to the federal government.

When the trading scheme kicks in the price will be determined by supply and demand.

So far overseas that's lead to virtually nil price and low volumes for the permits. If that situation persists when the Australian scheme goes open market the companies will be able to buy half their permits at low prices overseas, and that revenue won't be available for the Australian government to fulfill their promises of compensation, investment and research.

Those promises will have to be funded from consolidated revenue, which means either higher taxes, broken promises or funding cuts to other government activities.

Meanwhile the actual cost plus whatever they think they can get away with will be passed on to customers by the emmitters. Various people have modelled this with various numbers being kicked about. It's a hard thing to predict accurately because of our complex interlinked economy.

The emmitters list is interesting. As I recall there are two universities in there. Not necessarily who you expect to be "naughty polluters".

[Vernonv]

... every ton of carbon dioxide you emit into the atmosphere has to be paid for either by buying a permit or paying a fixed levy/tax/whatever to the federal government.The later is a carbon tax (what the gov want to implement) and the former is carbon trading scheme (that was ditched by the gov).

I haven't been looking at the detail, but I was under the impression that what the gov want to introduce is a tax and NOT a CTS i.e. the polluter pays the tax regardless and can't offset that by buying carbon credits.