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 ...
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.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
115 bucks for half a haircut by a novice? I want my money back!
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 ...
again, no it will not really do that much. yes people my reduce the use of their cars in a small way, and reduce some carbon. but it's gonna hurt people who rely on their cars, people with families and such who do need their cars everyday. but the aim of this tax, which is what we are talking about here, is to stop the top 500 polluting companies in Australia from producing carbon. that will not happen with this tax. they will pass the price of carbon down the line. effecting the people who aren't even producing much carbon at all.
that is the point you don't seem to be getting. the major polluters who are getting taxed will not, and in some cases can not reduce their emission. they will just have to charge more for their product. which will mean the last person along the line, which are families and everyday people, will cop the brunt of everyone ahead of them raising their prices. and there is no one left for them to pass that increase onto. they just have to cop it.
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.
Gillard wasn't going to "act on climate change" in this way if it wasn't a hung parliament.
If you vote for the Carbon Tax, you are essentially voting for a Greens policy. Which is fine if you believe in the policy.
But don't pretend Gillard is "dumbing everything down only because the public are ignorant". There's no doubt that Abbott and the Coalition have absolutely no idea, but both parties are so close together at the moment it's ridiculous. There is no choice.
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 ...
again, no it will not really do that much. yes people my reduce the use of their cars in a small way, and reduce some carbon. but it's gonna hurt people who rely on their cars, people with families and such who do need their cars everyday. but the aim of this tax, which is what we are talking about here, is to stop the top 500 polluting companies in Australia from producing carbon. that will not happen with this tax. they will pass the price of carbon down the line. effecting the people who aren't even producing much carbon at all.
that is the point you don't seem to be getting. the major polluters who are getting taxed will not, and in some cases can not reduce their emission. they will just have to charge more for their product. which will mean the last person along the line, which are families and everyday people, will cop the brunt of everyone ahead of them raising their prices. and there is no one left for them to pass that increase onto. they just have to cop it.
And this is one of the reasons Gillard can't sell it.
As soon as you say "We are going to change the way we run our economy and run our lives by taxing companies... oh but some people will be better off!" doesn't wash with people.
In the end, if you just say to people they'll be a bit worse off (it's not that much) but we are doing it set ourselves up for when shit runs out and gets even more expensive, then people might listen.
They cannot and will not win the Carbon Tax debate. They're hoping that in 2 years time everyone is so sick of it and that by then Abbott will have nothing left to say and the debate shifts. He's basically stuffed when it isn't being argued anymore.
My only wish by then is that he isn't there in 2013, and ANYONE else is, so we can have a PM that isn't mental.
again, no it will not really do that much. yes people my reduce the use of their cars in a small way, and reduce some carbon. but it's gonna hurt people who rely on their cars, people with families and such who do need their cars everyday. but the aim of this tax, which is what we are talking about here, is to stop the top 500 polluting companies in Australia from producing carbon. that will not happen with this tax. they will pass the price of carbon down the line. effecting the people who aren't even producing much carbon at all.
that is the point you don't seem to be getting. the major polluters who are getting taxed will not, and in some cases can not reduce their emission. they will just have to charge more for their product. which will mean the last person along the line, which are families and everyday people, will cop the brunt of everyone ahead of them raising their prices. and there is no one left for them to pass that increase onto. they just have to cop it.
haha ... i get your point ... you don't seem to get mine ... yes, the polluters will initially pass on the cost to consumers but basic supply/demand laws would show that they will lose business - if they aren't losing business, that means they are underpricing their goods or service ... that loss in business should theoretically spur innovation to be more efficient ...
again - a carbon tax is designed to be revenue-neutral in theory ... i'm not sure what australia is doing ... but any incurred costs to the consumers are supposed to be offset in other taxation areas ...
i don't have all the stats but i know both sweden and denmark have had carbon taxes for a while and both those countries saw huge decreases in 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 ...
Aren't you are poor defending socialist?
Can you imagine whats going to happen to poor people if something like this was passed? How could they afford a carbon tax, they can barely afford a vehicle...
This tax would indirectly increase the cost of public transportation which would more than likely make public transportation unaffordable for the people who need it.
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 ...
again, no it will not really do that much. yes people my reduce the use of their cars in a small way, and reduce some carbon. but it's gonna hurt people who rely on their cars, people with families and such who do need their cars everyday. but the aim of this tax, which is what we are talking about here, is to stop the top 500 polluting companies in Australia from producing carbon. that will not happen with this tax. they will pass the price of carbon down the line. effecting the people who aren't even producing much carbon at all.
that is the point you don't seem to be getting. the major polluters who are getting taxed will not, and in some cases can not reduce their emission. they will just have to charge more for their product. which will mean the last person along the line, which are families and everyday people, will cop the brunt of everyone ahead of them raising their prices. and there is no one left for them to pass that increase onto. they just have to cop it.
This is true, but the costs will be marginal. I agree somewhat with the notion that it will shift industry and business behaviour - of course it will - but people won't change their behaviour if they're compensated or over-compensated.
It isn't a "Climate Change/Emissions Policy". It's not about "saving the world". If they just came out and said what it was, people might listen.
As I've said, the debate about energy has been hijacked by fear-mongerers on both sides. Those saying that everyone will die if we don't do something, and those saying we'll all die if we do do something.
There is no policy debate anymore. It's bloody disappointing, particularly in Australia, where regardless of ideology or opinion, we've always had reasoned debate. Those day are over. As soon as anything is announced, Alan Jones or GetUp join forces with special interest groups and hijack the shit out of the issue for their own leverage and it's a news story rather than a debate.
Aren't you are poor defending socialist?
Can you imagine whats going to happen to poor people if something like this was passed? How could they afford a carbon tax, they can barely afford a vehicle...
This tax would indirectly increase the cost of public transportation which would more than likely make public transportation unaffordable for the people who need it.
i guess you missed the part where i said numerous times that a carbon tax should be revenue neutral ...
global warming will have it's biggest impact on the poor people of this world ... we have already seen it ... devastating floods and droughts in asia and africa has taken many lives as well as forced people to relocate ... a poor person in many developed countries still has access to clean water and food ... yes, i'm a socialist but we can't solve one problem without fixing others ...
and did you just say this tax would make public transportation unaffordable? ... c'mon now ... that just makes no sense ...
Aren't you are poor defending socialist?
Can you imagine whats going to happen to poor people if something like this was passed? How could they afford a carbon tax, they can barely afford a vehicle...
This tax would indirectly increase the cost of public transportation which would more than likely make public transportation unaffordable for the people who need it.
i guess you missed the part where i said numerous times that a carbon tax should be revenue neutral ...
global warming will have it's biggest impact on the poor people of this world ... we have already seen it ... devastating floods and droughts in asia and africa has taken many lives as well as forced people to relocate ... a poor person in many developed countries still has access to clean water and food ... yes, i'm a socialist but we can't solve one problem without fixing others ...
and did you just say this tax would make public transportation unaffordable? ... c'mon now ... that just makes no sense ...
Droughts in Africa? You're suggesting that droughts in deserts are the result of carbon pollution?
Look, I think that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that human-induced climate change is real. I think we do have an impact. But to suggest that 200 years of pollution in the air has caused droughts in a desert is moronic, and highlights my earlier point about the issue being hijacked by outlandish statements.
Aren't you are poor defending socialist?
Can you imagine whats going to happen to poor people if something like this was passed? How could they afford a carbon tax, they can barely afford a vehicle...
This tax would indirectly increase the cost of public transportation which would more than likely make public transportation unaffordable for the people who need it.
i guess you missed the part where i said numerous times that a carbon tax should be revenue neutral ...
global warming will have it's biggest impact on the poor people of this world ... we have already seen it ... devastating floods and droughts in asia and africa has taken many lives as well as forced people to relocate ... a poor person in many developed countries still has access to clean water and food ... yes, i'm a socialist but we can't solve one problem without fixing others ...
and did you just say this tax would make public transportation unaffordable? ... c'mon now ... that just makes no sense ...
Really, you don't think the cost of public transportation would increase with a carbon/emissions tax???
Droughts in Africa? You're suggesting that droughts in deserts are the result of carbon pollution?
Look, I think that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that human-induced climate change is real. I think we do have an impact. But to suggest that 200 years of pollution in the air has caused droughts in a desert is moronic, and highlights my earlier point about the issue being hijacked by outlandish statements.
what makes it an outlandish statement? ... do you understand how droughts work?
obviously, a desert is essentially in drought and some of that was caused by massive deforestation ... but i'm not referring to droughts in deserts ... i'm talking about droughts like this one ... http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... DC20110727
Really, you don't think the cost of public transportation would increase with a carbon/emissions tax???
why would they make public transportation more costly when that is what they ultimately want people to use?
Why would it be more costly? Do busses not emit greater emissions that are being taxed?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.
Why would it be more costly? Do busses not emit greater emissions that are being taxed?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.
listen ... public transportation is central to any level of gov'ts environmental planning ... if their goal is to reduce emissions - then making public transportation unaffordable would be like trying to beat cancer and start up smoking ...
public transportation doesn't work in many parts of the US simply because the planning model is flawed ... america has long existed thinking resources were endless, space endless, everything available for mass consumption without consequence and cost ... look at the use of high speed electric rail in europe ... how is that there isn't a similar infrastructure in the north east corridor including Boston, NY, Philly, DC?
Why would it be more costly? Do busses not emit greater emissions that are being taxed?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.
listen ... public transportation is central to any level of gov'ts environmental planning ... if their goal is to reduce emissions - then making public transportation unaffordable would be like trying to beat cancer and start up smoking ...
public transportation doesn't work in many parts of the US simply because the planning model is flawed ... america has long existed thinking resources were endless, space endless, everything available for mass consumption without consequence and cost ... look at the use of high speed electric rail in europe ... how is that there isn't a similar infrastructure in the north east corridor including Boston, NY, Philly, DC?
Right, the gov wouldn't increase the cost of the ticket but they would be taxing us for the increase on something else. So this whole carbon tax is another redistribution of welth.
There are alot more cities in the US other than Boston, NY, Philly, DC. How do you think people will get to these high speed rails?
What about the entire construction/engineering/landscaping industry. YOu would be taking out millions of jobs because many SBE/MBE contractors can't afford to pay for company vechiles let alone a carbon tax of the employees using their own personal trucks on jobs.
This would make construction national with only a few players(general contractors) and inturn increase the cost of building your high speed rail because companies would jack up material shipment costs/labor, etc...
Why would it be more costly? Do busses not emit greater emissions that are being taxed?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.
listen ... public transportation is central to any level of gov'ts environmental planning ... if their goal is to reduce emissions - then making public transportation unaffordable would be like trying to beat cancer and start up smoking ...
public transportation doesn't work in many parts of the US simply because the planning model is flawed ... america has long existed thinking resources were endless, space endless, everything available for mass consumption without consequence and cost ... look at the use of high speed electric rail in europe ... how is that there isn't a similar infrastructure in the north east corridor including Boston, NY, Philly, DC?
These things don't run on air. Buses use petrol, which will go up under the carbon tax. So there for the price to run a bus will go up, so the cost of using the bus will go up. Trains run on electricity which will also go up. The price of public transport here in Australia is alread going up with rises in fuel and energy prices and we don't even have the tax yet. So they will increase more again.
So again it's the people doing the right thing and polluting very little getting hit with the cost of the carbon tax increase.
Right, the gov wouldn't increase the cost of the ticket but they would be taxing us for the increase on something else. So this whole carbon tax is another redistribution of welth.
There are alot more cities in the US other than Boston, NY, Philly, DC. How do you think people will get to these high speed rails?
What about the entire construction/engineering/landscaping industry. YOu would be taking out millions of jobs because many SBE/MBE contractors can't afford to pay for company vechiles let alone a carbon tax of the employees using their own personal trucks on jobs.
This would make construction national with only a few players(general contractors) and inturn increase the cost of building your high speed rail because companies would jack up material shipment costs/labor, etc...
based on your logic ... no tax anywhere would work ... how do sales taxes work? ... why haven't they bankrupted entire industries?
how do you think people in europe get to high speed rails? ... you do understand that amtrak currently can take you from most major centres in america to another ... it's just slow and inefficient ...
why is it that oil and coal are subsidized? ...
as a conservative - don't you believe we should be paying the full price of things we use? ... currently oil and coal subsidies IS a form of redistribution of wealth ... it redistributes it into the pockets of these big corporations ...
These things don't run on air. Buses use petrol, which will go up under the carbon tax. So there for the price to run a bus will go up, so the cost of using the bus will go up. Trains run on electricity which will also go up. The price of public transport here in Australia is alread going up with rises in fuel and energy prices and we don't even have the tax yet. So they will increase more again.
So again it's the people doing the right thing and polluting very little getting hit with the cost of the carbon tax increase.
i see you didn't even bother to address my previous post to you ...
i'll say the same thing to you as i did to blockhead ... if there goal is to get people to use public transportation - why would they make it unaffordable? ... they will likely take any revenue generated from the tax to offset any increases in cost in areas like public transportation ...
please at least acknowledge you understand my point about revenue-neutral ...
and you still don't have a solution ...
it's easy for people to gripe about this that and the other ... but problems require solutions ... why is it that people think that for every problem there should be a painless solution!??
the days of mass consuming resources without consequence are over ...
i will say this tho ... the issues surrounding global warming requires strong action ... there is a reason why not a whole lot has been done about it ... the political will and leadership is not where it is ... primarily because of a short-sighted populace ...
here is a list of environmental performance by countries http://epi.yale.edu/Countries ... the top 5 all have some form of carbon tax i believe ...
now ... here is a list based on prosperity index ... http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx ... they are all in the top 12 except for costa rica which is still a developing country ...
we only have one planet ... it makes sense to preserve it ... surely, people can see that?? ...
Right, the gov wouldn't increase the cost of the ticket but they would be taxing us for the increase on something else. So this whole carbon tax is another redistribution of welth.
There are alot more cities in the US other than Boston, NY, Philly, DC. How do you think people will get to these high speed rails?
What about the entire construction/engineering/landscaping industry. YOu would be taking out millions of jobs because many SBE/MBE contractors can't afford to pay for company vechiles let alone a carbon tax of the employees using their own personal trucks on jobs.
This would make construction national with only a few players(general contractors) and inturn increase the cost of building your high speed rail because companies would jack up material shipment costs/labor, etc...
based on your logic ... no tax anywhere would work ... how do sales taxes work? ... why haven't they bankrupted entire industries?
how do you think people in europe get to high speed rails? ... you do understand that amtrak currently can take you from most major centres in america to another ... it's just slow and inefficient ...
why is it that oil and coal are subsidized? ...
as a conservative - don't you believe we should be paying the full price of things we use? ... currently oil and coal subsidies IS a form of redistribution of wealth ... it redistributes it into the pockets of these big corporations ...
Do you understand how much of the contruction industry is travel?
Why do you refer to me as a conservative, because I have a differing opinion?
Why would we tax something that makes up 3% of ghg?
Do you understand how much of the contruction industry is travel?
Why do you refer to me as a conservative, because I have a differing opinion?
Why would we tax something that makes up 3% of ghg?
is the construction industry not taxed now? ... fuel is already taxed ...
i call you a conservative because you are anti-environment; anti-social programs and pro-war ... all traits of a conservative ...
i would answer your last question but it puts us back to where we are in the general discussion of global warming ... which is essentially my inability to get you to understand what global warming is ... i've challenged you, i've begged you, i've asked as nice as possible for you to spend some time to learn about it but alas - through all these threads and all these posts ... i can't get you to ... :(
Comments
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.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
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/
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.
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.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
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 ...
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 ...
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.
again, no it will not really do that much. yes people my reduce the use of their cars in a small way, and reduce some carbon. but it's gonna hurt people who rely on their cars, people with families and such who do need their cars everyday. but the aim of this tax, which is what we are talking about here, is to stop the top 500 polluting companies in Australia from producing carbon. that will not happen with this tax. they will pass the price of carbon down the line. effecting the people who aren't even producing much carbon at all.
that is the point you don't seem to be getting. the major polluters who are getting taxed will not, and in some cases can not reduce their emission. they will just have to charge more for their product. which will mean the last person along the line, which are families and everyday people, will cop the brunt of everyone ahead of them raising their prices. and there is no one left for them to pass that increase onto. they just have to cop it.
Gillard wasn't going to "act on climate change" in this way if it wasn't a hung parliament.
If you vote for the Carbon Tax, you are essentially voting for a Greens policy. Which is fine if you believe in the policy.
But don't pretend Gillard is "dumbing everything down only because the public are ignorant". There's no doubt that Abbott and the Coalition have absolutely no idea, but both parties are so close together at the moment it's ridiculous. There is no choice.
And this is one of the reasons Gillard can't sell it.
As soon as you say "We are going to change the way we run our economy and run our lives by taxing companies... oh but some people will be better off!" doesn't wash with people.
In the end, if you just say to people they'll be a bit worse off (it's not that much) but we are doing it set ourselves up for when shit runs out and gets even more expensive, then people might listen.
They cannot and will not win the Carbon Tax debate. They're hoping that in 2 years time everyone is so sick of it and that by then Abbott will have nothing left to say and the debate shifts. He's basically stuffed when it isn't being argued anymore.
My only wish by then is that he isn't there in 2013, and ANYONE else is, so we can have a PM that isn't mental.
haha ... i get your point ... you don't seem to get mine ... yes, the polluters will initially pass on the cost to consumers but basic supply/demand laws would show that they will lose business - if they aren't losing business, that means they are underpricing their goods or service ... that loss in business should theoretically spur innovation to be more efficient ...
again - a carbon tax is designed to be revenue-neutral in theory ... i'm not sure what australia is doing ... but any incurred costs to the consumers are supposed to be offset in other taxation areas ...
i don't have all the stats but i know both sweden and denmark have had carbon taxes for a while and both those countries saw huge decreases in emissions ...
and again - do you have any solutions? ...
Can you imagine whats going to happen to poor people if something like this was passed? How could they afford a carbon tax, they can barely afford a vehicle...
This tax would indirectly increase the cost of public transportation which would more than likely make public transportation unaffordable for the people who need it.
This is true, but the costs will be marginal. I agree somewhat with the notion that it will shift industry and business behaviour - of course it will - but people won't change their behaviour if they're compensated or over-compensated.
It isn't a "Climate Change/Emissions Policy". It's not about "saving the world". If they just came out and said what it was, people might listen.
As I've said, the debate about energy has been hijacked by fear-mongerers on both sides. Those saying that everyone will die if we don't do something, and those saying we'll all die if we do do something.
There is no policy debate anymore. It's bloody disappointing, particularly in Australia, where regardless of ideology or opinion, we've always had reasoned debate. Those day are over. As soon as anything is announced, Alan Jones or GetUp join forces with special interest groups and hijack the shit out of the issue for their own leverage and it's a news story rather than a debate.
i guess you missed the part where i said numerous times that a carbon tax should be revenue neutral ...
global warming will have it's biggest impact on the poor people of this world ... we have already seen it ... devastating floods and droughts in asia and africa has taken many lives as well as forced people to relocate ... a poor person in many developed countries still has access to clean water and food ... yes, i'm a socialist but we can't solve one problem without fixing others ...
and did you just say this tax would make public transportation unaffordable? ... c'mon now ... that just makes no sense ...
Droughts in Africa? You're suggesting that droughts in deserts are the result of carbon pollution?
Look, I think that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that human-induced climate change is real. I think we do have an impact. But to suggest that 200 years of pollution in the air has caused droughts in a desert is moronic, and highlights my earlier point about the issue being hijacked by outlandish statements.
what makes it an outlandish statement? ... do you understand how droughts work?
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons1.asp
obviously, a desert is essentially in drought and some of that was caused by massive deforestation ... but i'm not referring to droughts in deserts ... i'm talking about droughts like this one ... http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... DC20110727
why would they make public transportation more costly when that is what they ultimately want people to use?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.
listen ... public transportation is central to any level of gov'ts environmental planning ... if their goal is to reduce emissions - then making public transportation unaffordable would be like trying to beat cancer and start up smoking ...
public transportation doesn't work in many parts of the US simply because the planning model is flawed ... america has long existed thinking resources were endless, space endless, everything available for mass consumption without consequence and cost ... look at the use of high speed electric rail in europe ... how is that there isn't a similar infrastructure in the north east corridor including Boston, NY, Philly, DC?
There are alot more cities in the US other than Boston, NY, Philly, DC. How do you think people will get to these high speed rails?
What about the entire construction/engineering/landscaping industry. YOu would be taking out millions of jobs because many SBE/MBE contractors can't afford to pay for company vechiles let alone a carbon tax of the employees using their own personal trucks on jobs.
This would make construction national with only a few players(general contractors) and inturn increase the cost of building your high speed rail because companies would jack up material shipment costs/labor, etc...
These things don't run on air. Buses use petrol, which will go up under the carbon tax. So there for the price to run a bus will go up, so the cost of using the bus will go up. Trains run on electricity which will also go up. The price of public transport here in Australia is alread going up with rises in fuel and energy prices and we don't even have the tax yet. So they will increase more again.
So again it's the people doing the right thing and polluting very little getting hit with the cost of the carbon tax increase.
based on your logic ... no tax anywhere would work ... how do sales taxes work? ... why haven't they bankrupted entire industries?
how do you think people in europe get to high speed rails? ... you do understand that amtrak currently can take you from most major centres in america to another ... it's just slow and inefficient ...
why is it that oil and coal are subsidized? ...
as a conservative - don't you believe we should be paying the full price of things we use? ... currently oil and coal subsidies IS a form of redistribution of wealth ... it redistributes it into the pockets of these big corporations ...
i see you didn't even bother to address my previous post to you ...
i'll say the same thing to you as i did to blockhead ... if there goal is to get people to use public transportation - why would they make it unaffordable? ... they will likely take any revenue generated from the tax to offset any increases in cost in areas like public transportation ...
please at least acknowledge you understand my point about revenue-neutral ...
and you still don't have a solution ...
it's easy for people to gripe about this that and the other ... but problems require solutions ... why is it that people think that for every problem there should be a painless solution!??
the days of mass consuming resources without consequence are over ...
i will say this tho ... the issues surrounding global warming requires strong action ... there is a reason why not a whole lot has been done about it ... the political will and leadership is not where it is ... primarily because of a short-sighted populace ...
here is a list of environmental performance by countries http://epi.yale.edu/Countries ... the top 5 all have some form of carbon tax i believe ...
now ... here is a list based on prosperity index ... http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx ... they are all in the top 12 except for costa rica which is still a developing country ...
we only have one planet ... it makes sense to preserve it ... surely, people can see that?? ...
Why do you refer to me as a conservative, because I have a differing opinion?
Why would we tax something that makes up 3% of ghg?
is the construction industry not taxed now? ... fuel is already taxed ...
i call you a conservative because you are anti-environment; anti-social programs and pro-war ... all traits of a conservative ...
i would answer your last question but it puts us back to where we are in the general discussion of global warming ... which is essentially my inability to get you to understand what global warming is ... i've challenged you, i've begged you, i've asked as nice as possible for you to spend some time to learn about it but alas - through all these threads and all these posts ... i can't get you to ... :(