Australia now has a carbon tax....
Comments
-
polaris_x wrote: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 ...
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.condescending and sarcastic since 19800 -
Hinn wrote: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.Come to send, not condescend...0 -
threefish10 wrote:polaris_x wrote: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 ...
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.Come to send, not condescend...0 -
threefish10 wrote: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 ...
and again - do you have any solutions? ...0 -
Aren't you are poor defending socialist?polaris_x wrote: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 ...
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.0 -
threefish10 wrote:polaris_x wrote: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 ...
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.Come to send, not condescend...0 -
Blockhead wrote: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 ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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.Come to send, not condescend...0 -
Really, you don't think the cost of public transportation would increase with a carbon/emissions tax???polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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 ...0 -
JK109224 wrote: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 ... DC201107270 -
the carbon tax will clearly end droughts and floods and save africa. it's a flawless plan.Yeh I've seen Pearl Jam, too. But I can't remember the dates.0
-
Why would it be more costly? Do busses not emit greater emissions that are being taxed?polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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?
Who is going to pay for it?
Public transportation can't work on a large scale in the US.0 -
Blockhead wrote: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?0 -
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.polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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?
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...0 -
polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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.condescending and sarcastic since 19800 -
Blockhead wrote: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 ...0 -
threefish10 wrote: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?? ...0 -
Do you understand how much of the contruction industry is travel?polaris_x wrote:Blockhead wrote: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 ...
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?0 -
Blockhead wrote: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 ... :(0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help