Carbon Tax Poll

[PH005]

OK . Here we go. This could get lively. The biggest topic on the Governments list at the moment must be the Carbon Tax debate. What do you think. Will it help ? Will it do nothing at all ? Who's to blame ? Who should pay ?

Warning: Mod note: This is an emotive topic. DO NOT GET PERSONAL ... this is the first and final warning - 7 or 21 day bans will be given if needed.

[Tommo1965]

the biggest bills that my household has are electricity and fuel for travel.....the carbon tax will push these prices up even further...until there is cleaner cheaper source for me to purchase then all the CT will do is make me poorer....

if miss Gilard will use the extra revenue raised to install a 4 KW solar panel rig on my roof..then d say yes.. until that commitment is promised..I say NO CT.

another thought is .... until china /India are made to pursue a carbon reduction...what real difference will 20 million aussies make ...we are now paying a price for a government elected by many..run by a few..{greens}

dont get me wrong..im all for cleaner air..but what alternatives are there..plus tell my neighborers with their bleedin potbelly's all wound down and choking the neighborer hood

[Irru]

CT.
another thought is .... until china /India are made to pursue a carbon reduction...

China has set its carbon reduction targets, and they are very, very ambitious. They'd be laughable in fact, if the Chinese government wasn't as powerful as it is, being both capable and willing to enforce it. Because that government is a communist one (albeit more socialist these days), no carbon tax/trading scheme is needed. They tell a company to change, and it damn well gets changed.

Our government doesn't have that kind of power though. If we legislated to force our energy companies to replace their plants with clean power stations, within 3 years (or even 20) it would hit the courts and likely never leave them.

An emissions trading scheme (or a carbon tax) are ways that a government can legislate in order to manipulate market forces in ways that will indirectly encourage, and later even force, companies to make those same changes we cannot directly force.

We need to be leading this movement, because small though we are, we're influential. We certainly shouldn't be waiting until all the other bad kids in the schoolyard are playing nice first.

It sucks that times will get tougher, but we have to do our part because this is the biggest and toughest crisis humanity has ever faced. Consider it WW3 and be thankful there are no air raids.

[kiwi]

Its a tax without any proof yjay it will lead to any effect at all, so, its just nothing, zero, zilch, waste, a political football

[terry.langham]

I voted No, simply because I don't think it is the most cost and job effective way to reduce emissions. However if there was sufficient alternatives to 'dirty' electricity, I think a carbon tax would work to even up the cost of producing 'green' energy. Sadly we are well and truly behind the 8ball in that regard.

Terry

[ving]

awww!!! sweet!!!

[Kym]

No!

Why?
Because it will not provide the genuine changes needed and will disadvantage Australia for no real benefit.
It is more about wealth redistribution than, CO2 with 10% (half a billion) going to un-audited, unaccountable
UN funds to 'help' 3rd world countries when in fact none of it will do anything except line the pockets of corrupt governments.

The carbon tax whole thing is a joke!
To whit ... we export nearly 300 MILLION tonnes of coal a year. That will increase to nearly 500 MILLION in the next 5 years.
Coal accounts for 23% of our gross export revenue.

Juliar got this wrong on so many levels.

[ving]

why is there more than one ving here?

there can be only one!

[PH005]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that India already has a CT of 1 Aust $, Germany 17 Aust $, so why is Australia proposeing a FORTY $ per tonne CT ?

[ameerat42]

It's not that I don't think we should collectively do something about fixing the world in general, but a TAX?!
To achieve what?
What a backwards thought! It would be badly administered, and part of it would be used to "subsidise..." who? what? why?
And someone would develop a scam out of it.
And it wouldn't do much except make us moan and wail more.
And pretty soon they would have to increase it.

Why complificate matters any further?

Whoever Cate wants to look in the I, let her do it without taxing US!
Am. (As in, where coming from.)

[PH005]

Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name.

[ameerat42]

Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name.

PH005. And you, half as much for mis-punkchuating it!

[I @ M]

PH005. And you, half as much for mis-punkchuating it!

Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name.

Joolia schmoolia, who cares how it is spel'd or punktuatid, if they manage to get this "carbon reduction cure" going I think she will be able to look back on it as probably the last thing she did in office ----

[Kym]

Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name.

Can't Rick's and my accounts are locked - we can't even ban each other

[triptych]

I voted NO!

I dont believe a tax should be introduced that will disadvantage tax payers when there is no proof that it will reduce carbon emissions.

[Lance B]

A categorical No!

Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no proof of global warming due to man's output of carbon dioxide, a tax will do nothing. Australia emits 1.5%-2% of of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and man's total contribution world wide is only about 3% and 97% is natural! So, Australia's carbon dioxide emissions compared to the total world's carbon dioxide emissions is 1.5%-2% of 3%!!!!! In other words, .06%!!! Even a 20% reduction of Australia's emissions will reduce this contribution to about .05%!! And a tax will fix this exactly how???? Even if we removed everyone from Australia, there would be no change whatsoever in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

All a carbon tax will do is drive industry from Australia to countries which do not have a carbon tax, like India, China, USA etc, and India and China have less efficient methods of producing electricity etc and therefore will produce more carbon dioxide emissions than what we would save here. Australia trying to implement a carbon dioxide tax is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

No one can explain how, over many thousands of years, that somehow the amount of caron dioxide that is present in the atmosphere, up until mans involvement, was magically the correct proportion to sustain life as it is now. In other words, how was it regulated before now and how come it became this magical perfectly equalised amount? There isn't any magical amount and the fact is, there are many contributing factors that result in the temperature of the earth, and carbon dioxide, a completely necessary gas for life otherwise we would all die, is just one of them. Making out that a miniscule alteration of carbon dioxide quantities in the atmosphere due to man's involvement makes no difference to the temperature because the earth has it's own mechanisms for dealing with these small changes as it has been doing for thousands and millions of years.

Having, done much research and listened to many experts on both sides of the argument, my conclusion is that man's involvement is not a causation of climate change. Climate change is a natural occurance that has been fluctuating for thousands of years and will continue to do so regardless of what we do. As Bob Carter, an eminent figure on the subject, put it, trying to stop climate change is liek trying to stop a volcano errupting.

[Tannin]

It is mad, absolutely mad, to subsidise bad things like carbon pollution when we tax good things, like wages and housing.

We tax cigarettes, which don't actually do all that much harm (other than kill smokers, which may equally well be considered a benefit), but we DON'T tax carbon, which is destroying the planet our children will have to try to live on?

Not having a carbon tax is just arrant stupidity. Should have been done years ago.

[junqbox]

I believe a CT is an important thing to implement for the following-
- It will encourage us to use less electricty made by non-sustainable means.
- The money which will be returned to users, particularly in the lower socio-economic groups, can be spent on purchasing more economical devices.
- Encourage companies to look at more innovative ways to do what they currently do in a less pollutive way. EG- Automobile manufacturers are developing Hybrid, Electric and Hydrogen (among others) cars because of the punative financial measures implemented by governments, particularly Europe and California, which has resulted in more fuel efficient petrol/diesel cars and the proliferation of the alternative based fuel cars, as above.
- The CT is not intended to a long term measure, the process is designed to become a Emmision Trading program after a given period of time.

What is the alternative (be honest with yourself before you start ranting back at me).
Continue as we are? Not very generous towards our future generations. We don't think too hightly of the peoples who have gone before us and created devastating environmental vandalism.
Direct action? Doesn't actually encourage strong action by those who believe they can afford to run un-economical/environmentally unfriendly lifestyles.

At this point in time an actual dollar figure has not been officially announced, so there is much mis-information being spread by the likes of Mr Abbott, Mr Jones (et al), and others. China and India are actually investing in more environmentally power production processes than we are because they know as their usage will increase in the future they cannot be a slave to resources which are only going to go up in price as availability goes down.

The ALP are doing a poor job of communicating the need, The LNP (with a few notable exceptions) are pressing forward with a small minded negative campaign designed to continue the lining of the pockets of their more ardent supporters (anyone still feel sorry for the 'poor boys' club of Rhinehart, Palmer & Twiggy? (top 10 richest) and how they were going to be devastated by a Mining Tax). Given the LNP's track record on infrastructure growth/maintenance it's little wonder their policy is 'do nothing' till it breaks completely.

We as a country, and as individuals, are responsible for our actions and can leaders of how best practice can be implemented. Australia is know as being an innovative country, this is one of our opportunities to prove how innovative we can be.

Or we can sit back and wait for the tele to go blank and die of asphyxiation from poor air quality.

Rant ended.

[Nonas]

Thank you, junqbox.

There was a rebroadcast of an interesting program on all of this on ABC Radio National this morning, particularly on what's happening in other countries - the podcast or transcript can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/...htm#transcript.

[ricktas]

I believe a CT is an important thing to implement for the following-
- It will encourage us to use less electricty made by non-sustainable means.
.

yes, but here in Tasmania a vast majority of our power comes from Hydro schemes (non/less polluting by a long way), yet we will still be paying the tax! There is no incentive at all to ensure those that source power from a clean source benefit, under the current carbon tax idea. Rather the Govt have decided to minimise the impact on the lower income groups, not those who do reduce their carbon footprints? It is a flawed idea in its present form!