Australia now has a carbon tax....

JK109224

As soon as I found out that 500 of the biggest Australian businesses would be taxed heavily, but "3 million Australian's would be financially better off" I had a chuckle.

Would just rather they say "Yep, it's an energy tax, we need to shift our thinking or we'll be farked in 50 years, you'll all pay a bit more for shit" than a complex explanation of wealth redistribution.

know1

How does a tax do anything to help the environment?

All I see it doing is giving more money and power to the government and removing freedoms from people.

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

How does a tax do anything to help the environment?

All I see it doing is giving more money and power to the government and removing freedoms from people.

you pay taxes now to have your garbage picked up ... in many places - you have to pay more if you produce significantly more garbage ... this is similar ...

honestly, in essence i agree that it would be great if gov't did not need to get involved ... but people are selfish in nature and sadly, these are the only methods currently that seems to work ...

clearly telling people of global warming and it's effects is not enough to drive change ...

know1

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

How does a tax do anything to help the environment?

All I see it doing is giving more money and power to the government and removing freedoms from people.

you pay taxes now to have your garbage picked up ... in many places - you have to pay more if you produce significantly more garbage ... this is similar ...

honestly, in essence i agree that it would be great if gov't did not need to get involved ... but people are selfish in nature and sadly, these are the only methods currently that seems to work ...

clearly telling people of global warming and it's effects is not enough to drive change ...

My point is: What is the government doing with those extra tax dollars to prevent climate change or help the environment. Or is it just a punishment for living?

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

My point is: What is the government doing with those extra tax dollars to prevent climate change or help the environment. Or is it just a punishment for living?

it's a deterrent to polluting ... but feel free to interpret it as your eyes see it ...

global warming has consequences, air pollution has consequences ... i would hope the gov't would take those funds and help australia use less fossil fuels ... they could do that by subsidizing home renovations, energy audits, investing in renewables ... etc ...

i dunno what they will actually do but that is what i would do ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

My point is: What is the government doing with those extra tax dollars to prevent climate change or help the environment. Or is it just a punishment for living?

it's a deterrent to polluting ... but feel free to interpret it as your eyes see it ...

global warming has consequences, air pollution has consequences ... i would hope the gov't would take those funds and help australia use less fossil fuels ... they could do that by subsidizing home renovations, energy audits, investing in renewables ... etc ...

i dunno what they will actually do but that is what i would do ...

how can it be a deterrant to polluting when industry as a big polluter will just pass the price onto us?

maybe someone said it previously(i cant be bothered going back and checking) the gillard govt is bringing this tax in cause her proposed mining tax got murdered in its sleep.

and yes i agree, the tax collected should go to sustainable energies and subsidising technologies for those who want to go green. but theirs no guarantee that it will. this government has shown us nothing that would give us cause to believe that will happen. in the past few years theyve given us an insulation batts initiative and a solar energy initiative and in both cases the safety of homeowners was put in jeopardy.. in fact people died cause the government just handed out money to not entirely reputable companies to do the work, the majority of which was substandard, and they werent monitored. so youll have to forgive us if we have zero faith in our federal government for anything that has to do with environmental issues and how to 'fix' the problem.

Thoughts_Arrive

$4m mail-out coming soon to your letterbox, a brochure explaining carbon tax facts

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/m-mail ... 6103691550

I'll be marking it with "return to sender" and dropping it back into the mailbox

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

how can it be a deterrant to polluting when industry as a big polluter will just pass the price onto us?

maybe someone said it previously(i cant be bothered going back and checking) the gillard govt is bringing this tax in cause her proposed mining tax got murdered in its sleep.

and yes i agree, the tax collected should go to sustainable energies and subsidising technologies for those who want to go green. but theirs no guarantee that it will. this government has shown us nothing that would give us cause to believe that will happen. in the past few years theyve given us an insulation batts initiative and a solar energy initiative and in both cases the safety of homeowners was put in jeopardy.. in fact people died cause the government just handed out money to not entirely reputable companies to do the work, the majority of which was substandard, and they werent monitored. so youll have to forgive us if we have zero faith in our federal government for anything that has to do with environmental issues and how to 'fix' the problem.

it's a deterrent because even if the polluters pass that cost to the consumer ... at some point, the added cost will make the consumers consider using less of it ... that's the principle idea here ... i'm not saying your gov't will do what is right with it ... all i'm saying in theory - it's the simplest way of trying to reduce emissions ... if anyone has any other ideas - i'm all ears ...

threefish10

polaris_x wrote:

it's a deterrent because even if the polluters pass that cost to the consumer ... at some point, the added cost will make the consumers consider using less of it ... that's the principle idea here ... i'm not saying your gov't will do what is right with it ... all i'm saying in theory - it's the simplest way of trying to reduce emissions ... if anyone has any other ideas - i'm all ears ...

but how can consumers use less food and other essentials like that? the flow on effect of passing the the price of carbon onto consumers will effect alot of everyday things that are just unavoidable to use less of. so in the end again it's the everyday people and families who will be effected most by this tax, not the big polluters.

ONCE DEVIDED

I would like to see advance in the economy towards . regioinal foods being cheaper.
sure fishy the price of an apple or orange cost will rise generally because of transport costs.
the way at present we produce food is pretty wastefull.
an orchard in my region will produce an amount of fruit, this fruit is then trucke to a major distribution point, generally frozen then shipped out to supermarkets in other regions and my own region where the fruit came from. sure the carbon price should and will affect that price.
but what about what i do at present. tomorrow morning I will rise early grab my big bag and head down to the farmers markets. the prices are great but the freshness and quality is the reason I go.
My cooking and the families diet love this type of thing.
If you want the convenience of supermarkets, well pay the cost of transport and the pollution it creates.
there are other options, even growing your own if you have the room.

polaris_x

threefish10 wrote:

but how can consumers use less food and other essentials like that? the flow on effect of passing the the price of carbon onto consumers will effect alot of everyday things that are just unavoidable to use less of. so in the end again it's the everyday people and families who will be effected most by this tax, not the big polluters.

food and other essentials are of course critical which is why they are often exempt from many taxes ... having said that - they are still taxed right now and yet no one seems to gripe about that ... but in the big picture - you have to be looking at energy use, transportation, manufacturing ... etc ... those are where you need to make your biggest cuts in emissions ...

again - i understand the word "tax" is like herpes to many people ... but the end goal is to reduce ghg emissions - if anyone has a better idea ... please suggest it ...

when gov't wanted to reduce smoking - they waged an educational campaign and they taxed the shit out of it ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

threefish10 wrote:

but how can consumers use less food and other essentials like that? the flow on effect of passing the the price of carbon onto consumers will effect alot of everyday things that are just unavoidable to use less of. so in the end again it's the everyday people and families who will be effected most by this tax, not the big polluters.

food and other essentials are of course critical which is why they are often exempt from many taxes ... having said that - they are still taxed right now and yet no one seems to gripe about that ... but in the big picture - you have to be looking at energy use, transportation, manufacturing ... etc ... those are where you need to make your biggest cuts in emissions ...

again - i understand the word "tax" is like herpes to many people ... but the end goal is to reduce ghg emissions - if anyone has a better idea ... please suggest it ...

when gov't wanted to reduce smoking - they waged an educational campaign and they taxed the shit out of it ...

People don't need to smoke...people need their vehicles to get to work they, need to heat their homes...which require the production of oil and gas in most cases. All a carbon tax will do is be passed on to the consumer.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

People don't need to smoke...people need their vehicles to get to work they, need to heat their homes...which require the production of oil and gas in most cases. All a carbon tax will do is be passed on to the consumer.

i've already been thru this ...

again - if anyone has any ideas on how to reduce emissions ... i'm all ears ...

threefish10

polaris_x wrote:

i've already been thru this ...

again - if anyone has any ideas on how to reduce emissions ... i'm all ears ...

yeah, but you don't seem to have any ideas either. you are just repeating the same thing. like many or most on this thread have said, the tax will not reduce emissions either. the price of carbon will just be passed on to consumers, many who have little or no choice on reducing the use of things that will go up. sure they can cut down/back on somethings, but not everything. it's just gonna hurt families already struggling in this volatile economic climate.


EDIT: http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/- ... osts-poll/

ONCE DEVIDED

Sure stuff is going to cost more.
my question a s always is that is
Do you think that you pollute. do you think it should be free. do you think its your right
I know that i do pollute
I do not think it shold be free at all. polluting should not only come at the cost of the planet.

why does everything come down to quantity of dollars instead of whats actually right.

threefish10

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Sure stuff is going to cost more.
my question a s always is that is
Do you think that you pollute. do you think it should be free. do you think its your right
I know that i do pollute
I do not think it shold be free at all. polluting should not only come at the cost of the planet.

why does everything come down to quantity of dollars instead of whats actually right.

I don't dispute this at all. But what I am arguing about this carbon tax is it has pretty much zero effect of the environment and will not stop the big polluters from polluting. they will continue doing business the way they have been and will pass the cost of the tax down onto consumers. The news story I posted above shows most businesses will pass on the cost. Like even the government can see that will happen and say the bulk of the money rised from the tax goes back to people to help with in increase in the cost of living. but only for those that do fit the criteria, which isn't everyone that the increase in living cost will effect. So I ask what's the point of that?

I do think it's up to individuals to consider how much impact they have, but this isn't targeted at individuals it's targeted at the top 500 polluters who either can't reduce their emissions cause no matter what they do their business causes carbon emissions. Are they gonna oh well, there is no way around us causing carbon, let's shut up shop. No they are gonna say oh well, this is costing us more we are gonna have to charge more. Or they spend millions or billions to reduce their emissions and they will still pass that onto consumers. So again in the long run it is not the people doing the bulk of the polluting paying for that polluting, it's the families who emmit a million times less then the big guys paying for the big guys polluting.

It's very naive to think the big companies a gonna some how gain a moral compass and wear the cost of their own polluting. It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

People don't need to smoke...people need their vehicles to get to work they, need to heat their homes...which require the production of oil and gas in most cases. All a carbon tax will do is be passed on to the consumer.

i've already been thru this ...

again - if anyone has any ideas on how to reduce emissions ... i'm all ears ...

Yes your right you've been through it...what about creative solutions...for example if you drive a 6 cylinder you'll pay double to license it an 8 cylinder double that, with all the extra money being invested into public transit within that community. My wife and I drive 4 bangers out of necessity in order to earn a living, we have 2 vehicles...public transit is not an option for either of us. Those are just some examples off the top of my head...I'm all for creative solutions...but why punish those that are being responsible for at least trying.

polaris_x

threefish10 wrote:

yeah, but you don't seem to have any ideas either. you are just repeating the same thing. like many or most on this thread have said, the tax will not reduce emissions either. the price of carbon will just be passed on to consumers, many who have little or no choice on reducing the use of things that will go up. sure they can cut down/back on somethings, but not everything. it's just gonna hurt families already struggling in this volatile economic climate.


EDIT: http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/- ... osts-poll/

a tax will most definitely reduce emissions ...

ex: everyone has a price they are willing to pay for gas for their car ... at some point they will either have to drive less, change cars, or put it away ... it's really that simple ...

and articles like that don't mean anything ... we know the corporations will pass the tax on to the consumers but i also know (working in the industry) that these articles are funded by retail lobbyists who don't want to hurt sales or profits ... which is fine ...

i'm sorry i sound like a broken record but no one has answered my question yet keep repeating the same things to me ...

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes your right you've been through it...what about creative solutions...for example if you drive a 6 cylinder you'll pay double to license it an 8 cylinder double that, with all the extra money being invested into public transit within that community. My wife and I drive 4 bangers out of necessity in order to earn a living, we have 2 vehicles...public transit is not an option for either of us. Those are just some examples off the top of my head...I'm all for creative solutions...but why punish those that are being responsible for at least trying.

sure ... but in a way these people already are being punished via the taxation system ... those cars are less fuel efficient so that means it probably costs those drivers more to go the same distance as drivers with more efficient cars ...

but either way - you are still calling for a tax ... the only problem is that you will only see nominal gains in your emission reductions ...

i'm not sure how australia is implementing this but a carbon tax should be the most effective and economical way of reducing emissions ... in theory, this tax should be revenue-neutral ... meaning for every amount they receive in taxes - there should be an offset somewhere else ...

Hinn

I'd vote for it. Without the compensation part. But politics being what it is, the politicians have do water down policy ideas that might actually be sensible do it doesn't offend the masses, so they don't get wiped off the map at the next election and let in the other lot who actually deny that climate change even exists.

So this is what we're left with, cos Julia knows if she goes in full steam the idiot public would bring in the Mad Monk next up, the most vehemently denialist in Australia.

It wouldn't have been so insipid if Turnbull was leading the opposition.