cisco said...

Q.1 Do we need to find and develop other scources of energy??
A. I think so.


Q.2 Do we need to find better ways to deal with our waste and pollutants??
A. I think so.

Q.3 Is CO2 a pollutant??
A. I don't think so.

Q.4 Do we need a "carbon tax" to achieve outcomes for Q.1 & 2.
A. I don't think so.

Fair enough, cisco. So what better suggestion do you have to achieve 1&2?

If CO2 is such a problem why are carbonated drinks still being produced?

I can remember when I was a kid a Fizzy drink was a treat... now days carbonated are regarded as a standard drink, so what makes it fizz.... CO2 yes Carbon Dioxide !!!!!

Maybe carbonated, brewed & fermented products should be highly taxed
It may also improve the health of the nation with a reduction of obesity and diabetes. And any taxes collected goes to the health system.




www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/beverage.xls

SomeOtherGuy said...

cisco said...

Q.1 Do we need to find and develop other scources of energy??
A. I think so.


Q.2 Do we need to find better ways to deal with our waste and pollutants??
A. I think so.

Q.3 Is CO2 a pollutant??
A. I don't think so.

Q.4 Do we need a "carbon tax" to achieve outcomes for Q.1 & 2.
A. I don't think so.

Fair enough, cisco. So what better suggestion do you have to achieve 1&2?

How about some public honesty and truth from the government

evlPanda said...


.... C'mon people, they conned you all
..... I'm actually anti-communist, by the way,
...Lenin....

You been conned as well.

Lenin wasn't a communist, he was a dictator. Marx (and a few others) had a theory about a better society and called it 'communism'.

You have been conned by capitalists to believe Lenin was a communist, and therefore communism is bad.

Marxist communism is actually very good - in theory. It would never work in practice (and never has even come remotely close) because humans have evolved through survival of the fittest, it is in our build-up to be selfish and to want to be better than the next man.

The anti-communism propganda put out by the capitalist states post WW2 was worse than the current fear-mongering over fundamentalist muslim terrorism.

I don't think you need to loose sleep over either.

SomeOtherGuy said...

Yep, that'd do me fine for electricity. What about all the other users of fossil fuels?

On second thought - I could see the suppliers and producers doing sweetheart deals. Or some smart cookie buying both a retailer and a supplier so his money goes around in circles and still ends up in the same pocket.

dunno ... maybe more thought required...

SomeOtherGuy said...

SomeOtherGuy said...

Yep, that'd do me fine for electricity. What about all the other users of fossil fuels?

On second thought - I could see the suppliers and producers doing sweetheart deals. Or some smart cookie buying both a retailer and a supplier so his money goes around in circles and still ends up in the same pocket.

dunno ... maybe more thought required...

But it wouldn't cost $4 billion for the regulators to stop it happening.

And best case he is neutral to where he is today but no cash leaves Australia to buy off shore carbon credits, and the incentive for the supplier side of the business is still there, and it would be a pretty unique situation where one generator and one supplier are in such equal balance that the circle is neutral and supposedly the market would balance anyway with new suppliers.

If you don't agree the market would correct that situation then why do you believe the market would do the same thing under the ETS.

The above scheme is essentially very similar to the ETS, but on 52% of emissions on the 'big two' not 75% (or whatever the ETS will eventually cover) on the 'big 500', but then it doesn't cost $4 billion either.

Why put the ETS on 500 ?, not 499, 501 or 2 ?. 2 covers 52%, 500 covers 75%, 100,000 covers 95%. Draw the line somewhere.

FlySurfer said...

Just get this in to your heads.

Carbon tax == Australian austerity package.
It's what the masters ordered.

K?

@SomeSimpleGuy: Your right it's going to save the world. Go be happy

So far ----------------------







That ,makes the most sense!

well, i've been following these threads for 3 weeks now trying to make sense of it all

i'm up for green thumbing the planet.

but this to me is nothing more than complicated tax with dubious targets motivated by shady, hidden, passed over backroom deals internally and internationally

i would really love to know what the labor party promised to the green party to get them over the line . it all secret squirrel business and its on the nose imo,

as someone said- how about just being honest to the australian public

at the end of the day what does the tax achieve in co2 reduction- not much.

i think you have to have outstanding blind faith to believe a tax is going to solve the problem

you can call me a dumbs### 'tax' sceptic

its over and out on this topic

laceys lane said...
how about just being honest to the australian public

This will never happen without a revolution, and we don't want a revolution because they always start off real ugly.
Honesty and politician are polar opposites.

Australian's have been too focused on the small picture, and intentionally so. The big picture is one of global governance... nothing new here, it's been like that since before we could write (history). It's in our genes to want to dominate.

There are groups who are actively trying to educate the people so as to bring about a soft change. And those who are in control reply by curtailing the release of information, or enacting new laws so as to be able to do this at will... ostensibly to protect us, but in reality it's just to keep us uninformed and subservient to their system.

If you want the truth, you must be prepared to examine and question everything and not rely on somebody to feed you their view.

If you want the truth, you must be willing to look at the system, international agreements, cause and effect of the information you receive.

If you want the truth you must look at what is influencing your reality/view and how this came about.

If you want somebody to tell you the truth, well good luck mate.

This climate tax is just one piece in a big puzzle. There's another piece is coming down the line, and that's going to affect us much more than another tax.

Australia's financial system isn't national.

So why do you want the truth and can you really handle it?
What are you going to do with the truth once you have it?

I love carbon...all my high spec toys have plenty of it.

To man's blind indifference to his fellow man,

to a whole generation who were butchered and damned. 2020?



U.N World Government will be close to coming into existance when the engineered gfc really starts to hit home.

little money to buy food----looting/rioting the result.

little money to pay your mortgage--banks take your property.

out of the chaos,we have order,a new U.N order.

as famous retired policeman Jack McLamb points out,the people will not just ask for martial law,but will demand it of there officials.

what if there is or an't, maybe the powers have got together and created a new industry.

petermac33 said...

To man's blind indifference to his fellow man,

to a whole generation who were butchered and damned. 2020?

U.N World Government will be close to coming into existance when the engineered gfc really starts to hit home.

little money to buy food----looting/rioting the result.

little money to pay your mortgage--banks take your property.

out of the chaos,we have order,a new U.N order.

Well we were presented with 2 options.

1.- Anarchy (system break down)
2.- Tyranny (world governance)

I didn't like either.
I wanted education and a space program! Competition between nations to colonise other planets.

War was taken off the table ~2001, because it ultimately lead to anarchy after destroying too much of the world.

The tax fact=

No companies will be forced by law or otherwise to do anything towards the enviroment(tax is there and rises over time no matter what they do or dont do).
They are hoping that market forces will force them to invest in renewables ?????

Individuals are/will be forced to pay for rising costs whether they like it or not, whether the supply companies invest/or dont.

Loser=consumer/we pay for no mesureable scientific impact(fact), there is no study, no proof

Company=whatever