Australia: A$23
NZ: NZ$2.51 ($2), www.bloomberg.com/quote/NZUSSPOT:IND
EU: Eur 4.12 (A$5.32), http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Emission%20Rights/European%20Carbon%20Futures%20%7C%20Derivatives
India: A$0.89
China: LOL
USA: ROFL
We all know it was just Labor's way of increasing taxes without increasing the more visible 'income tax' and pissing everyone off. Most people think that it's big evil corporations that pay and are too retared to see that it's actually just us as a consumer paying more for stuff and having sweet FA effect on the actual environment.
The carbon price isnt the only cost.
Fee to audit your corporations carbon emissions.
Three days' work.
15k
Mattygee: Emissions down 8% since introduction. Food cheaper than ever. Win Win. Stop buying abbott's cr@p.
Underoath: keeping some aussies in work?
mattyjee: Consumers are reimbursed come end of year.https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
Underoath: Only affects the top 200 polluters, or those who may be close to that bracket I guess, as they are the only ones actually paying the carbon tax. I can't see why John & sons plumbing would need carbon pollution auditing.
Preemptive #1: By creating a financial incentive to lower carbon pollution.
Preemptive #2: I guess some people don't like contributing to a problem like this, no matter how small their contribution.
I always thought the intention of the co2 tax was that its supposed to be used for reducing or fixing global warming/ climate change (or whatever its latest newspeak name is)
If that was the case- how would a co2 tax plug a shortfall of general taxation revenue?
I mean, honestly- our government wouldnt really go and spend our hard earned cash on something they shouldnt be- would they? [}:)]
stephen.
The government are stupid and they waste money.
People don't like paying taxes.
The carbon tax is not perfectly formulated.
Some people don't "believe" in climate change.
Just thought I'd add something
Here's some economy / carbon tax myths busted in nice graph form. Everything is footnoted too, so while I can't say whether each one is true, it has a source shown which is a good start.
thefinnigans.blogspot.com/
Look back 50 or a hundred years. Look at the majority of the world today - poverty, famine, no water, no power, war, genocide, people just dying from basic diseases. We've won the lotto, each and every one of us. Just like the majority of lotto winners, a year later they're not happy. Wanting more, more, more.
The intention of the carbon tax was to stop the sea rising,a problem only a blind man can beLIEve exists.
ooooOooooh this is starting to sound heavy.
What weight does it have to be before it is off to the heavy forum.
I think it's up around fifty kilos at the moment. 
Select to expand quote
Are you still trying to work out how the carbon tax works?
That policy will be about as effective in solving that problem as the carbon tax will be in reducing CO2.
Whatever effect it might have will be swamped by one week of increased emissions from the rest of the world.
Actually, Julia didn't really care whether it worked or not so long as it secured the support of the greens.
It wasn't her policy. "There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead",.. stated three (3) (iii) (0011) times.
That's the lowest common denominator argument. ie We should take no action, because we are told by some people in the media and politics, who themselves are willing to tell lies to get into office (remembered John Howard and his non-core promises) that we will be acting alone.
There is another section of the media that reports that the Chinese are doing their best to go to renewables, even though they are massively building coal-fired power stations. There is some merit in the argument that they are only catching up to the sort of standard of living that a quite poor person in the West enjoys.
I don't know which lot of media hacks is telling the truth.
I also don't know if it's true that the highest part of the Chinese government is occupied by people with science and engineering training, rather than the loud mouths we have who went to university to study Arguing 101.
But I'll take a punt on the Chinese having more of a sense of long-term outcomes given their 4000 year history and 40 or 50 years of working their way up the party hierarchy than the Abbotts, Gillards (game on, anyone?) and Alan Joneses that we have allowed to become our leaders.
I didn't say that we should take no action.
I'm saying that the carbon tax will not solve the problem.
The problem will not be solved by forcing people to use less energy by putting the price up. We will keep on using more energy and grizzle about how expensive it is and then demand we are paid more to pay for it.
And that's just us here in Australia.
The rest of the world is getting on the same train.
More people will want what we've got and that will require more energy.
The problem will only be solved by finding new ways of generating energy.
That's the action that we should be taking.
