The Federal parliament's ALP parliamentary minority with the help of a few independents is planning a new tax on carbon. Without carbon life is impossible. There is no evidence life without carbon is possible. Despite this parliament is planning a tax against on carbon, on life. So we have to pay tax on life. No longer are taxes on income or consuming is enough. A tax on life is needed. With this tax how can we afford to live? How will we afford to buy the wind toys we need to enjoy life?


Middle ages European kings taxed windows in houses. Home owners boarded up their windows. Today PMs and presidents propose to tax the gasses we exhale. A tax on something we can't see, touch or hear. The ultimate tax.

well log man aren't you people part of the problem?

All you log men cutting down the forests?

So your above post gives a good indication why you deleted the thread yesterday that did not agree with your "mind" or "way of thinking"... Like I said what a joke

Great response Logman.

Yeah I was a bit drunk last night and watching Wall Street when I posted that so my mind was not right. If it works out the way you suggest Nebbian then the proposed carbon tax/trade scheme could be ok.

However I don't think the scheme will work to reduce pollution as politicians will be afraid of a political backlash. To reduce pollution we would have to be encouraged to drive significantly less. Most motorists drive because they have to, not because they are joyriding or there is a public transport alternative. So to get people out of their cars would require a huge increase in the price of fuel. When petrol was hitting $2 a litre a few years ago the roads were just as busy as when it priced at $1 a litre. So fuel would possibly have to be something like $3 or more to really impact number of cars on the road. No politician will do this.

Similar situation with electricity. What politician will be responsible for bringing in a system that triples the price of electricity? However that is probably what is needed to reduce consumption and pollution from power generation.

Its a similar situation with almost everything we consume or produce. Less pollution can largely come about through less consumption. How much pollution is created building a digital camera for us to buy or a new board? If no one bought them there would be less pollution. There will also be fewer jobs.

Somehow I doubt many people or organisations will make much money from whatever the parliamentary ALP is cooking up besides the government and a few wheelers and dealers. Its highly unlikely the ATO or whoever will send you out a cheque if you plant trees on your farm or backyard. Any payment would go to some fund that doles out the money to a bunch of rent seekers driving around in black V8 Mercedes Benzes.

Mobydisc said...

Great response Logman.

Yeah I was a bit drunk last night and watching Wall Street when I posted that so my mind was not right. If it works out the way you suggest Nebbian then the proposed carbon tax/trade scheme could be ok.

However I don't think the scheme will work to reduce pollution as politicians will be afraid of a political backlash. To reduce pollution we would have to be encouraged to drive significantly less. Most motorists drive because they have to, not because they are joyriding or there is a public transport alternative. So to get people out of their cars would require a huge increase in the price of fuel. When petrol was hitting $2 a litre a few years ago the roads were just as busy as when it priced at $1 a litre. So fuel would possibly have to be something like $3 or more to really impact number of cars on the road. No politician will do this.

Similar situation with electricity. What politician will be responsible for bringing in a system that triples the price of electricity? However that is probably what is needed to reduce consumption and pollution from power generation.

Its a similar situation with almost everything we consume or produce. Less pollution can largely come about through less consumption. How much pollution is created building a digital camera for us to buy or a new board? If no one bought them there would be less pollution. There will also be fewer jobs.

Somehow I doubt many people or organisations will make much money from whatever the parliamentary ALP is cooking up besides the government and a few wheelers and dealers. Its highly unlikely the ATO or whoever will send you out a cheque if you plant trees on your farm or backyard. Any payment would go to some fund that doles out the money to a bunch of rent seekers driving around in black V8 Mercedes Benzes.

Soo.... you're solution is - don't bother cause it ain't going to work and some shady bloke will find a way to make money out of it??

Don't try, just die. Pretty bleak viewpoint there mobydisc.

^^^^

I tend to agree with you padrino. I'm of the belief that this endless arguing about CO2 emissions and global warming is pointless and just diverts attention from the real problem - we need alternative sources of energy. I've said here before that the oil industry themselves say that on current numbers, the oil will run out in my granddaughters lifetime. She's already at school so the clock is ticking.

But if carbon taxes or any other measure can push us towards developing alternative (preferably CLEAN) sources of energy, then I'm all for it.

hills said...

DaGodfather said...

Tax will do nothing unless there is an alternative source of energy we can use.
You can only reduce consumption by so much. In the end people still need to drive to work and use the electricity at home.

The tax is just another source of revenue that they can mismanage. If the goverment were REALLY serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions they would make plans to close ALL coal fired power stations and replace them with wind, solar or nuclear ones.
But they are not. Instead of picking up the responsibility for changing the infrastructure they would rather tax people and pass the buck on to the end user to stop using energy - which we can't!

Is anyone in this forum going to stop driving or using electricity at home if energy prices tripled? I think not!

I don't disagree with you, but I think the logic behind the tax is to drive up the price of "dirty" power and thus make the large investment required to set up "clean" energy viable.

No energy company is going to invest millions in solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, gas powered turbines or dare I say it, nuclear infrastructure if consumers are just going to buy the cheaper energy from coal powered or other "dirty" power generation methods.

So seeing as though geothermal is looking so promising (small companies are already drilling deep holes, shooting water down it an getting steam, right?)
then why introduce a tax on dirty power? The Govt could put $43bil into geothermal instead of a broadband network.
Probably sell the tech to the world too and be cost neutral after a few years

That is the problem, the government trying to pick winners. Why doesn't the government say "Every power producer has to meet this standard of emissions per k/w generated, has to meet this safety standard etc." Then just let the market do what it does best, work out what is a goer and what isn't?


Instead the heavy hand of government will be redistributing wealth with middlemen doing well till the rules change yet again. Why does government always think it knows best? Isn't the Soviet Union a reasonable lesson against centralised planning?


If the government just let people get on with it with reasonably strict standards before you know it a company would set up a modern nuclear power station pumping out gigawatts of cheap electricity night and day with no greenhouse gas emissions besides water vapor from the cooling towers.

I'm not up to date what the gov't is doing, but from all previous discussions I've heard, this was going to be a carbon trading scheme with a price put on carbon emissions as Nebbian said above.

Therefore if I want to make money from something that produces carbon I can reduce my carbon output balance or footprint by doing something that reduces carbon, like planting trees (again as Nebbs said above) or I can pay another company to do this. This is how I understand money will be made from this. If I am carbon neutral at the end of this I don't have to pay anything.

This way new companies will start up that do things that reduce carbon, like manufacture more efficient light bulbs, solar panels, plant trees etc and they will then be able to sell their carbon credits to companies that have to produce carbon.

Sure those companies will forward this cost onto us the consumer, but I didn't think it would just be money going to the government in a tax.

I could well be wrong though as I said I don't pay much attention to what the gov is up to at the best of times.

hills said...

I could well be wrong though as I said I don't pay much attention to what the gov is up to at the best of times.

Given that not even the government knows what the tax will look like because the tax hasn't been designed yet, you're no more likely to be wrong than anyone else here hills. There's a lot of hot air around this issue.

Mecky said...

nebbian said...


...
So it's emissions that are being taxed, not carbon per se. So the price of a fishing rod won't go up just because it's got carbon in it.
...

Yes, the price of the fishing rod is going to go up because emissions have been produced in the manufacturing/transport process.

You're right the transport process is a large contributor to the emissions, therefore locally produced fishing rods might be more attractive which in turn will create more local jobs etc etc. This idea just keeps getting better and better!

To support this theory, Dr Karl on JJJ told me personally (plus a few million other listeners that were eavesdropping) that the cancellation of flights due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption stopped so much CO2 emissions, that the eruption actually had a positive effect on the environment.

Yeah. Well I am worried too because so many people just accept what the pollies and the media pump out so often despite it not being validated by real science.

Like somebody said "Tell a lie often enough and people (read sheeple) will accept it as truth."

cisco said...

Yeah. Well I am worried too because so many people just accept what the pollies and the media pump out so often despite it not being validated by real science youtube.

Like somebody said "Tell a lie often enough and people (read sheeple youtube junkies) will accept it as truth."

There ya go, cisco.

So is New Scientist...

I would repeat your above advice with this magazine.

(1) Opposition says they will remove any tax if they gain power, Government says that is very irresponsible because people will have planned for a tax.

(2) previosuly Government says it will not introduce a carbon tax if it is re-elected, then once elected it says it now will introduce a tax

How is (2) different to (1) ?

Like others have said there is no detail in the announcement, other than - we will introduce a tax in July 2012, then change it sometime later to something else (not sure how this is also that different from (1) ).

Didn't the same thing happen with a mining tax - new tax, no detail, no consultation and no idea. That toppled a prime minister, this sounds like poor politics to me. You would have thought there would be some deatail to stop the opposition scare stories

Why isn't it a tax on all pollutants and all waste ?

Last year CFCs, this year carbon, next year old lithium batteries ?

The tax should be on anybody who manufactures waste.

How that works I don't know, but how the carbon tax works nobody knows either.

While they are at it why not remove income tax and transfer it to GST on unecessary consumer goods - such as magazines and internet forums and pencil sharpeners.

theDoctor said...




but as long as you read newspapers and watch tv, you'll never understand that...

by the way, uncensored 23 is out this week,

read it

So you saying that if I never watch TV or read a newspaper and only ever read Uncensored I will have a more balanced view of the world ?

I am pretty sure there is more variety and difference of opinion and varied views of the world in the world's TV and newspapers than in Uncensored magazine.

Maybe if you only ever watch CNN and you may have a point but, moderation and variety in everything Doc. I think you need both to make you mind up.