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.
I'm not sayimg a word or the topic will be deleted.
Maybe Doggie can rescue it by saying "boobs."
well log man aren't you people part of the problem?
All you log men cutting down the forests?
It's hard to find any clear articles that show exactly what is proposed to be taxed... about the only one I could find was this one:http://dancass.com/static/files/assets/2edd1ed8/MPCCC_Carbon_Price_Mechanism_Final.pdf
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.
As far as I understand it the idea behind this is to make it less attractive to pollute the atmosphere, because it will cost more if you do. And as it's a trading scheme, you would actually get paid if you start planting trees (which reverse the trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere).
To my mind it's a great idea, as it hits the bottom line of companies. The profit/loss statement is the most important thing for most companies, so if you start coupling emissions to profit, companies will work very very hard to reduce their emissions.
The other part of the scheme (which won't be introduced immediately, but is planned to be introduced later on) is to have a floating price for carbon credits, so the marketplace decides what price carbon pollution would cost.
To my mind this is diabolically clever 
It means that the tried and true forces of market economics will hit polluters over the head with a big stick if they step out of line. And it will reward companies that actually look after the environment, with the best gift they can recognise -- money.
I think that it won't be long before all the other major developed countries follow suit (if they haven't already). This scheme promises to save the planet, which I quite like the sound of 
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
Just to clarify -- I didn't delete the thread you're talking about. There is more than one admin on here.
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.
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 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.
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.
Not all governments... A quote from Malcolm Turnbull from Q and A 28/2/11 - We believe in letting you do your best and Labor believes in telling you what is best.
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. 
How does implementing strict controls help? All that'll do is drive up the cost of energy production because the power plants will have to (somehow magically) create systems that make them compliant and that will cost big money. Or (more likely) they'll pay lawyers and consultants big bikkies to find loopholes so they don't need to comply. And if you're worried about the government picking winners, well that solution is WORSE because of the said loopholes that'll mean some industries get hammered while otherse are unaffected.
There is no free lunch here.
) 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."
I love how complete morons maxms believe real sciece is only released via mainstream coporate mediums and can only be legitimately commented on via these bought and paid for avenues, the likes of daily telegraph, today tonight, fox news- bill o'reilly
, etc etc...
but a free avenue (in relative terms, much too close to the bone information is removed from youtube), where people who can post their own research and yes opinions (most 'legitimate' news you believe to be fact is nothing more than bought and paid for opinion---and that is a fact) is laughed off as unscientific
thanks to (in)vested interests 'science' has failed us.
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
you might just learn something
I love how those who are too clueless to understand a pencil sharpener can pump up their own egos convincing themselves that they really are smart because they found some clown's video on youtube.
Try going to school, doc. You just might learn something.
(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.
