Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!!

[snappy]

Originally Posted by sudszy

List them! you will find there is a less than a handful, and there will be even fewer that can provide some research to go with it, and peer reviewed reports.......rofl.

Dr Friis-Christensen and Dr Lassen (Danish Meteorological Institute)
Dr Richar Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Prof William Happer (Princeton)

[mik]

its good we have had a civilized discussion on this(so far ), thanks for allowing this admins,
i see no down sides to this tax for the incumbent govco, except for their most likely demise at the next election, however as far as money raking goes, all i can see should this tax go ahead is prices going up due to increased costs for industry etc, and extra dollars flowing in via the GST because of it, just like petrol the govco is monetarily smiling everytime there is a price rise ( just not publicly).
Ultimately like the GST the C.T will give govco a little bit more control of every dollar(or was it 52c) we earn, or am i looking at wrong?

[BHDOGS]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/b...-1226070192770

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by snappy

Correction a handful of country's have emission trading scheme's now name one that is not in financial trouble or doesn't have record unemployment

Some countrys with an ets or a carbon tax finland, new zealand, india, The Netherlands , sweden, norway, denmark, switzerland, also united kingdom are thinking about it and south korea taiwan and south africa have implenmented smaller versions of it

[GasoLane]

I think I've got it worked out.

For the sake of argument lets call our Hypothetical (sorry Flappist) company the Acme Electricity Gas and Oil Solicitors ltd. Or EGOS.

#1 The Gov is going to fine/tax/charge EGOS for putting Carbon into the air.

#2 This is supposed make EGOS work out ways to make power less polluting.

#3 Until EGOS have worked out how to reduce their carbon footprint they will pass on the extra charge to their customers.

#4 EGOS already charge an arm and a leg for lighting and heating and any extra cost that is passed on means customers will not be able to afford to use as much power/gas/oil.

#5 Because the Gov has done such a good job of getting the public to reduce their carbon footprint (by using almost nothing) EGOS is loosing money and has to put the price up again.

#6 When EGOS eventually do find a solution to the carbon pollution problem and can produce power for next to nothing their shareholders will insist that all Australians get a massive reduction in their power bills.

(the last line was a joke)

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

After all the details of the tax haven't even been released yet and everybody's ready to march on Canberra.

So, do the people that marched in Syd and other places for the tax KNOW the details ?. Or are they just a lot more easily persuaded by PR departments?

[snappy]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Some countrys with an ets or a carbon tax finland, new zealand, india, The Netherlands , sweden, norway, denmark, switzerland, also united kingdom are thinking about it and south korea taiwan and south africa have implenmented smaller versions of it

uk have got one also germany now name one one of those countries that there people are doing well

[snappy]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/b...-1226070192770

Awesome work pick the only industry in the country that is not able to pick and leave , they cant exactly take the mine with them now can they.
But ask the company's that use there products to build or provide somthing

[superpursuit83]

I have been trying to find out what this all means for me and my bussiness.

There is nothing I can see that will help me plan for this.

It is just another tax. Its not going to make me pollute less. I have to do what I do.
Bottom line is the end consumer will be the one paying. Thats all of us somehow.

Australia is going to be owned by China within 20yrs I reckon. We just cant compete with the rest of the worlds prices.

[Bud Bud]

It's a con, I have no problem with that, it is a well designed and engineered energy driven consumption tax on the mass. It is designed to make it easier to transition from fossil fuels to a hopefully more a sustainable energy generation because we will simply have to, and without the panic and hopefully without world conflict, all disguised in the name of saving the environment.

Where I do have a problem is telling us it is for big companies to reduce their carbon emissions so we will have cleaner air to breath. I don't think it has anything to do with this. It is way of putting a new tax into place so that it becomes mainstream before electricity use becomes the greater norm for powering most of our transport needs. It is about the cost to generate the next generation's power needs and make up the potential loss of tax over the more traditional methods such as fuel excise etc., which will wind down over a generation of consumers.

At $100 US a barrel and with the worlds biggest consumers on the back foot and the value of the "oil currency" falling, would it not be in the best interests of the Arabs to increase production so the US can recover to the point that the oil currency begins grow again? After all this has been a well used tactic in the past, why not now?

In Adelaide we have begun a program of relaying tram tracks after ripping them up in the late 50's and there are plans for the now diesel powered public train system to be electrified in the future as well. Who is going to pay for this, and why would we bother?

Have a look at the solar panel installation, why has the Gov given so many incentives to get so much power back into the grid, why not just turn up the turbines in the power stations and charge accordingly? Well this is what we used to do in the past.

Electric cars are coming and in a generation or so they will be made far more efficient than petrol cars of today, but once there is enough of them, they will eventually require great loads of base power to keep them running.

I don't think that we have a choice, electricity is the future and it will shape our kids and their kids in a way that we just can't imagine in as little as a single generation from now. Gov's of today know this and other interested parties know this, hell even the Arab nations know this. Some are even planning for at time when tourism will become their number 1 income instead of oil. For some this is less than a decade away. That would have been unheard of a generation ago.

The green thing is a rouse. It is a way to help install these changes to a "willing to help mass". They have used this tactic before when they took lead out of petrol so that they could introduce a lower substandard grade of petrol that needed to be cleaned by "lead incompatible" cat converters.

I maybe miles of beam and that is ok but that is what I think this tax is all about imho.

Bud Bud

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by superpursuit83

Australia is going to be owned by China within 20yrs I reckon. We just cant compete with the rest of the worlds prices.

China alreay owns Australia does'nt it??

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Did you look at the link I provided earlier:http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

you want to tell us the US geological survey is telling lies too?

You want "balanced" information? sites that include real data and facts are unbalanced?, oh, by balanced you mean people quoting no facts or providing any real data telling you agw is a scam?

Perhaps look up the author of the article: David Evans....he is not a climate scientist, nor has he done any research in the area, just come up with his own self serving theories that will appease those with their fingers in their ears:

Self serving? Mr Evans interests are making sure it is business as usual for the mining industry, perhaps look him up as Goldnerds.com and why not look at the rantings of his partner in crime Joanne Nova.

I think there are lots of lies (deliberate or not) floating around. Only takes 1 person to be right and the other 1,000,000 to be wrong ...... who you going to put your faith in? I dont know because I haven't read everything about it on the internet as a lot of it is biased & agenda driven ..... on both sides but more so by the believers as they seem to be the ones with blinkers and appear to have something in it for them. "The g'ment said so because some scientists said so ...... I read it on the internet so its true"

I am glad you are convinced but do not drag me and my family and my business into a tax that we all will be stuck with forever ..... and that was the point of the question. You look at it as a stupid question but, similar to water restrictions, when things are good and we can all breath again, does the tax come off?

What is the amount to be taxed?

What percentage is the polluters of the world going to charge us?

How is this going to benefit our lifestyle or longevity if the costs are just passed onto the consumer?

What incentive is there for the 'polluters' to adjust their ways?

How much is the g'ment going to make from all this and why let the 'polluters' charge us when it is not necessarily our fault?

Where is the "absolute proof' this new tax will work?

Why are the solutions to our problems solved by the g'ment making more revenue?

Can you not see why people are cynical? It involves the g'ment making a fistful of dollars and we just bend over and say "Yep"?

Can you not see that it has become the new religion .... and a scary one at that? How many times can someones god be proven wrong and which god is the right one? Better hedge your bets and believe in the lot just in case I think! Wonder how many google searches I can find on religious discussions.

Theres money in them hills and I am a skeptic 100% until proven otherwise ..... and am talking about the tax first and foremost followed by the man made climate claims that is still not convincing. Remove the fact that lots of people are going to make HUGE amounts of $$$ from it and this might quell my skeptical thoughts.

The 'believers' have blinkers while my eyes and ears are open but nothing is convincing me yet ...... bit like a religion I must be the devil incarnate for being a non believer and how dare I question my future!

[BHDOGS]

I understand your point of view but it is skewed if you dont believe scientists what will it take to convince you that climate change is real? jesus returning and shouting it at you.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Blue_XR

Some of you here mentioned 'Shock Jocks' and they way they carry on. Have any of you actually listened to the debate. I know for one Allan Jones, who some of you refereed to actually interviews people on both sides of the fence and he tries to actually state Facts about the climate.
.

Oh.... My..... God......
You just didn't really try to say that Alan Jones tries to give a balance are you?
The other week he had the first scientist on there that believes in it and just pilloried him with absolute crap and didn't let the poor bloke get a reasoned word in edge wise. if you honestly believe Alan Jones gives a balanced view on anything you are so deluded you should be locked up.
I am just beyond amazed that anybody believes what the old queen rants on about.

[steve.zissou]

[QUOTE=MITCHAY]I had to laugh at the people who got up on a Sunday morning to protest FOR a tax

This - i mean WTF? protest to Save the children, save the whales, save the endagered spotted rat or even to reduce carbon pollution but to prostest FOR a Tax??? They should drug test those dingle berrys

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

I understand your point of view but it is skewed if you dont believe scientists what will it take to convince you that climate change is real? jesus returning and shouting it at you.

Not skewed at all and which scientist should I believe in? If you read what I wrote again above ...... it is more to do with a tax than whether anyone wants to believe in climate change or not and the effect this tax is going to have if any? This thread is about the tax ..... the climate change debate has been sung many times already with no conclusion so lets stick with the topic.

Still wouldn't mind a few basic questions answered. They are really quite simple ones I would think for those who agree that a new tax is the answer. Any one around that went demonstrating on the weekend with their kids? "A tax on people who make carbon is good" ain't going to cut it.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Not skewed at all and which scientist should I believe in? If you read what I wrote again above ...... it is more to do with a tax than whether anyone wants to believe in climate change or not and the effect this tax is going to have if any? This thread is about the tax ..... the climate change debate has been sung many times already with no conclusion so lets stick with the topic.

Still wouldn't mind a few basic questions answered. They are really quite simple ones I would think for those who agree that a new tax is the answer. Any one around that went demonstrating on the weekend with their kids? "A tax on people who make carbon is good" ain't going to cut it.

I agree, and the Gillard government has linked the tax specifically to reducing CO2. Each and every time the simple question is asked "by how much will the tax reduce CO2 ppm and when" this is never answered.

Why can't the proponents of this tax answer this simple question????

Wouldn't it be reasonable for every taxpayer to be provided an explanation as to what outcome this tax is going to achieve and by when?

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by cheap

Wouldn't it be reasonable for every taxpayer to be provided an explanation as to what outcome this tax is going to achieve and by when?

it would be, providing the government actually believed in it, rather than forcing it onto us due to their needs and egos

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by snappy

Dr Friis-Christensen and Dr Lassen (Danish Meteorological Institute)
Dr Richar Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Prof William Happer (Princeton)

Yeah 'Sudzy' like he said

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

What is the amount to be taxed?

I suggest you keep in touch with news developments, the government hasnt announced this yet. Garnaut's latest report suggested $26 tonne, much less than initially thought would be needed to see a change in consumption of Australians. So far govco has been following Garnauts lead and my best bet they are going to go for this low figure.

Myself, would be in favour of a scale that starts low $30/tonne and slides upwards ($50-60 60 tonne) over the next three years, so that people can plan and ease into it.
Whether petrol will be exempt, dont know, they are talking about removing excise and putting the tax on.......keeping the price about the same, pointless.
You can calculate what it would do to the price of petrol, 1 litre of petrol produces about 2.2kg of co2, about 6c/L.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

What percentage is the polluters of the world going to charge us?

Do you mean what price will oil companies and power utitlites charge? about $26 tonne, check your latest power bill and it will tell you how many kgs of co2 you have produced, or alternatively each kWh produces about 1kg of co2 if the elec comes from coal. So at the lower rate specified by Garnaut add about 2.6c per kWh to your rate, which is on average about 20c per kWh at present.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

How is this going to benefit our lifestyle or longevity if the costs are just passed onto the consumer?

Consumer will go for the product that is priced cheaper or avoid buying items that are too expensive due to their carbon tax, manufacturer will look for ways to make their item producing less carbon and electricity providers will look to alternatives to co2 producing fuels to provide energy. Renewables will hopefully have a price advantage(probably not at $26/tonne) and so people buy their energy from the company that is able to offer a lower overall cost.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

How much is the g'ment going to make from all this and why let the 'polluters' charge us when it is not necessarily our fault?

Dont know what level you operate, but you realise that the money that govco collects doenst go into Julia's retirement fund? I dont really care if the money goes into general revenue, it just means less tax in other areas. However, if that's important to you and you spend a large portion of your budget on carbon, they have claimed that the money goes back into the pocket of lower income earners and will be used for renewables research.

It's not our fault?, really aportioning blame for this predicament wont change the fact that it is our problem, that we have to deal with. Reliable renewable energy doesnt exist in this country, whose fault is that, the coal companies?, Id say ours for continuing to place our money(cheap energy) and short term interest ahead of looking at what this process does to the environment.


From your earlier post:

Originally Posted by Auslandau

1. If a tax is put on carbon 'manufacturers' ... and the 'manufacturers' pass on that extra cost to the 'consumer' ..... and the 'consumer' is reimbursed 'something' by the g'ment ..... who is the one that is going to change their 'carbon' habit enough to make a difference

So the very common concern that if you are just giving people more money then higher power bills will make no difference? Well fortunately most people's hip pocket nerves dont work that way.

Just for a second entertain the thought that you got a pay rise equal to your annual petrol bill, effectively you will be just as well off even if the price of petrol doubled.

But would you continue to use petrol in the same way at $3/L litre that you did when it was $1.5/L? I seriously doubt it, people would still look at reducing how much they spend on petrol simply because they still value money and would see $3 a litre as prohibitive, even though they have got enough in the bank to cover it.

Same thing will happen with energy bills, the bill will come in 10% higher, the normal family thing will happen, kids lectured on turning off light globes, people will again look at more ways to save and also look to companies that provide renewables as they should be cheaper, the extra 5-$600 they may get in income compensation(not a figure set yet) will be long forgotten.

Signs from govco are that compensation will not match the extra cost of electricity if people still use the same amount of electricity from a supplier that uses coal.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Where is the "absolute proof' this new tax will work?

There are no test rats for this, there is none. My concern is that the tax is too low to change the behaviour of the average consumer, 6c/L on petrol, is that really going to change how anyone uses a car? 10% on power bills, maybe.

[Dan_1987]

Hey sudszy I liked your answers to all the questions above. They were reasonable, and fair.
Out of curiosity, do people have any estimate for how many ppm CO2 will be reduced globally?
And further to that, the impossible-to-answer question, granted, -> How many degrees will global temperatures reduce on average in response to the reduced amount of CO2?
It'd be great to know the answers to these questions. In no way do I intend this in a hostile manner; I just genuinely want to know the answers to those questions.

[snappy]

Why doesn't the government bring in the carbon price at the market value @ $17 is beyond me
An name a renewable energy that works as a base load power .
There is not one our only answer is nuclear .
The facts are coal power is our only advantage in our country with high wages cheap energy is our only way of competing on a global scale and we are throwing that away for a feel good policy

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Dan_1987

Hey sudszy I liked your answers to all the questions above. They were reasonable, and fair.
Out of curiosity, do people have any estimate for how many ppm CO2 will be reduced globally?
And further to that, the impossible-to-answer question, granted, -> How many degrees will global temperatures reduce on average in response to the reduced amount of CO2?
It'd be great to know the answers to these questions. In no way do I intend this in a hostile manner; I just genuinely want to know the answers to those questions.

Hi Dan, hopefully you aren't the same poster as Cheap, who I suspect is really Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones, his arithmetic skills(lack there of) leads me to suspect he is Mr Jones.

One only has to go to the transcipt of an interview between Bolt and Flannery to see that this is a common taunt/question tried on by the denialist brigade to unsuspecting pollies. Christine Keneally basically lost the election(she was gone anyway) when the question was put to her on how much their green policies would reduce co2 levels/world temps, she had no idea and looked all the more fool for it.
Fortunately Flannery wasnt caught off guard, but this didnt stop Bolt making strawmen from his answers.

To cut to the chase, as I said before:Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm

Co2 levels are not going to drop in the short term(next 10-20 years) even if we stopped man made emissions today, the co2 we have put into the atmosphere basically has no where to go. Scientists haven't been able to give accurate predictions of how long it would take for the system to restore itself, some even agree that the system cant be restored, we have reached a new equilbrium.

All we can do is talk about reducing the size of the increase and the extent of the temperature rise.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Oh.... My..... God......
You just didn't really try to say that Alan Jones tries to give a balance are you?
The other week he had the first scientist on there that believes in it and just pilloried him with absolute crap and didn't let the poor bloke get a reasoned word in edge wise. if you honestly believe Alan Jones gives a balanced view on anything you are so deluded you should be locked up.
I am just beyond amazed that anybody believes what the old queen rants on about.

suggest that blue_xr looks goes to the abc iview site and takes a look at last week's media watch where Mr jones deplorable treatment of Dr Karoly was given a considerable airing, and contrasted with the free ride he gave to Richard Lindzen.

[mickyyyy]

Bottom line is they are trying to make money on us and have more leverage over society

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by snappy

Why doesn't the government bring in the carbon price at the market value @ $17 is beyond me
An name a renewable energy that works as a base load power .
There is not one our only answer is nuclear .
The facts are coal power is our only advantage in our country with high wages cheap energy is our only way of competing on a global scale and we are throwing that away for a feel good policy

I dont think the Japanese would agree with about nuclear at the moment.

The idea of a "tax" on big business which pollutes a massive amount is what i would call an "easy" way out of doing things.
If governments were truely interested in saving the planet they would simply introduce "laws" !!! which compell companies to reduce emissions.

They could introduce them gradually and as an incentive they could "fine" companies for polluting! (OMG they do that now!)

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it would be, providing the government actually believed in it, rather than forcing it onto us due to their needs and egos

That right there is a great point... DO THEY?
Does the Labor Government actually believe it will help???....
History says Labor has always backed the worker.. And the worker is the one that'll be kicked the hardest by this disgraceful tax. (especially if he hasn't a factory left here to bloody work at, after it's moved to India or China)
Not the BHP's, not the Rio Tinto's, not the Westfarmers... They couldn't give a stuff. They'll move on and survive.

I just wonder if we'd be having this debate if either Labor or the Libs had of had a clear majority at the last election?
The Greens and the other 3 nutters that Labor sold their soul to are behind this climate/CO2 debarcle, way way more than any of us imagine.
It was, and still is, part of "THE DEAL"

[snappy]

To cut to the chase, as I said before:Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm

Co2 levels are not going to drop in the short term(next 10-20 years) even if we stopped man made emissions today, the co2 we have put into the atmosphere basically has no where to go. Scientists haven't been able to give accurate predictions of how long it would take for the system to restore itself, some even agree that the system cant be restored, we have reached a new equilbrium.

Also many peer revieved scientists are undecided if the planet warming abit is a bad thing yet . An the concensis due to research from ice drilling is any changes wont be seen for 800 years .

[Jim Goose]

The Greens and the other 3 nutters that Labor sold their soul to are behind this climate/CO2 debarcle, way way more than any of us imagine.
It was, and still is, part of "THE DEAL"

Actually no... one of those nutters doesnt believe in the carbon tax and opposes it

[Blue_XR]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Oh.... My..... God......
You just didn't really try to say that Alan Jones tries to give a balance are you?
The other week he had the first scientist on there that believes in it and just pilloried him with absolute crap and didn't let the poor bloke get a reasoned word in edge wise. if you honestly believe Alan Jones gives a balanced view on anything you are so deluded you should be locked up.
I am just beyond amazed that anybody believes what the old queen rants on about.

I think you are referring to the person that wrote the climate change report for the government. I heard the interview and the guy was unable to answer the questions. His name escapes me now. It's funny how you have a go at him but you happened to have the program on listening to his so called rants. He also does have the top rating radio show in the morning, so he is doing something right. The problem is that the ABC and the other mainstream media push the same line as the government and because you happen to agree with man made climate change its ok for them to continue this way. When was the last time that you saw a scientist on mainstream media, especially the abc that was opposed to the science that the government are jamming down our throats.

I have listened to Gillard trying to explain her new save the planet tax. She has a lot of trouble explaining what it will actually achieve.

Also in regards to the government saying they will leave petrol alone. Well Bob Brown wants petrol included and guess what, in July they hold the balance of power. Of course petrol will increase. Petrol stations use electricity. The price of this will go up, so someone has to cover the costs and it won't be the business owners, like everything else the cost will be passed on to the consumer.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I dont think the Japanese would agree with about nuclear at the moment.

The idea of a "tax" on big business which pollutes a massive amount is what i would call an "easy" way out of doing things.
If governments were truely interested in saving the planet they would simply introduce "laws" !!! which compell companies to reduce emissions.

They could introduce them gradually and as an incentive they could "fine" companies for polluting! (OMG they do that now!)

Your kidding right japans 30yo nuclear plant has just been hit by one of the biggest earthquakes the planet has ever seen followed by a tsunami and it didn't go in to meltdown . What more proof of them being safe do you need do they need to survive armageddon or something
Ask the japs what the going to build to replace it , ten bucks says its not going to be a windmill