Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

You are calling me one-eyed

st, read the Opposition's policy, read the Government's policy and then tell us who will be paying the polluters.

Better still, read the 'Question without notice thread' and learn something about political discussion. Save your bile for the Bolt blog.

[dedja]

rednblack are you for real? the bloody government are paying polluters they are not fair dinkum it is a farce!! absolute joke. why dont they make all polluters pay come on tell me why seeing as tho you are a one eyed supporter just tell me why??

[straight talker]

thats pathetic why dont you stop posting rubbish when a question is to hard for you to answer? TELL ME WHY COME ON TELL ME??

[redandblack]

st, dedja's post sums it up.

That particular cricket match has finished, stumps have been drawn, but despite your stumps lying on the ground behind you first ball, you're still standing there, bat raised, claiming you're 100 not out

[Psyber]

ST, I am sympathetic to some your views, and have tried to clue you in on how to present a case, and to support you to the extent possible.
I felt sorry for you being "killed" every time you posted.

But I have to admit your posts are often, naive, unresearched and unsupported, and expressed as rants, not as solid arguments to be addressed.
Please do the research and post sound arguments, or give up embarrassing the rest of us conservatives.
You are just giving the other guys an easy target.

I've tried to persuade them to go easy on you, too, but you keep tempting them.

[straight talker]

im just simply looking for an answer from a couple of people on here as to why the government are giving polluters money and charging some and not the others? the others seem to know everything so i thought id ask them but i have no answers! why are they allowing some companies 500 i believe to get away with polluting the world?

[redandblack]

Instead of doing that, st, do two things.

1 Take Psyber's wise advice and we'll be very happy not to have to answer silly questions.

2 Read the government's policy and the Opposition's policy, read as much commentary as you can from those commentators who aren't partisan, whether left or right, read some scientific papers from other than sceptics and Bolt favourites and all your questions will be answered.

That is unless you don't want to know the answers, in which case refer to Point 1 again.

[straight talker]

so in other words you are the same as most australians and dont understand why either?? you cant answer me yet you think you know the lot which i now beg to differ.

[redandblack]

rednblack are you for real? the bloody government are paying polluters they are not fair dinkum it is a farce!! absolute joke. why dont they make all polluters pay come on tell me why seeing as tho you are a one eyed supporter just tell me why??

Calling Psyber, calling Psyber

[dedja]

phone a friend, 50/50 or ask the audience?

[fish]

One question though, how is it that the Pental Soap Factory in Victoria has to increase their prices - which we are to be compensated for, yet overseas based Soap companies in countries like China where there is no Carbon Tax dont have to increase their price at all?

That is a good question Sojourner.

The governments website has a section on helping small business, which claims that the impact on small business will be modest and details some financial and in-kind assistance that they make seek in regard to energy efficiency.

Pental may also be able to access the $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program detailed here.

Despite the availablility of this assistance I have no doubt that there will be some winners and some losers amongst Australian businesses as a result of this carbon price, just as there are as a result of changing conditions in the global marketplace.

I remain convinced that pricing carbon is the best way to move towards a low carbon economy, and the sooner we get an international agreement on pricing greenhouse emissions the better so that everyone is on the same playing field.

[fish]

...why are they allowing some companies 500 i believe to get away with polluting the world?

ST I think you may have misunderstood the governments program.

The top 500 or so polluters will have to pay the carbon price to the government based on the number of tonnes they produce. The most emission-intensive trade-exposed of these industries will receive significant assistance to minimise the impact, other less emission-intensive trade-exposed industries will receive less assistance.

As I understand it the settings for the carbon price (price/assistance/compensation) have been set in order to provide a decent incentive to reduce emissions but also to provide a "soft landing" for producers and consumers.

[fish]

ST, I am sympathetic to some your views, and have tried to clue you in on how to present a case, and to support you to the extent possible.
I felt sorry for you being "killed" every time you posted.

But I have to admit your posts are often, naive, unresearched and unsupported, and expressed as rants, not as solid arguments to be addressed.
Please do the research and post sound arguments, or give up embarrassing the rest of us conservatives.
You are just giving the other guys an easy target.

I've tried to persuade them to go easy on you, too, but you keep tempting them.

Come on Psyber I paid him/her a compliment the other day!

[straight talker]

it would be good if we could get a level playing ground in our own country first which is the question i have been asking why do some have to pay but not others? why do some get payed to pollute and not others? But no-body on this site knows the answer! i think originally it was a 1000 companies but julia changed her mind.

[dedja]

read this then re-read your question(s)

[Q.]

it would be good if we could get a level playing ground in our own country first which is the question i have been asking why do some have to pay but not others? why do some get payed to pollute and not others? But no-body on this site knows the answer! i think originally it was a 1000 companies but julia changed her mind.

Fish answered these questions a couple of posts above, as well as having been detailed in several links throughout this thread.

[straight talker]

posted before i seen it. still cant get my head around letting some pollute and some not and some getting paid and some not.. if they were trying to ease it on the companies why is she raising the price on carbon after the first 12 months? same as she said farmers would be spared the carbon tax? if a farmer has a plane to spray his crops he will be copping an extra tax, if a farmer loads a contractor truck up full of his wool he will be paying a tax! so farmers are not being spared really are they?? I could be wrong and im sure there is a few people on this blog that would know!?

[fish]

Meanwhile the Liberal Party remains the party of choice for climate change deniers. The WA branch wants a Royal Commission into climate science

Thankfully the WA Premier has displayed some leadership on the issue:

WEST Australian Premier Colin Barnett has rubbished a push within his party for a royal commission to investigate the science on climate change. A motion calling for a royal commission on climate change headed by a eminent judge will be debated at the Liberal Party's WA conference on the weekend. But Mr Barnett was strident in his opposition to the motion. "A royal commission into that? It's not sensible," he said today. "I support more science, more research, not a royal commission."

An interesting bit at the end of the story caught my eye:

Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott will address the conference on Saturday.

I wonder if the Minnesotans for Global Warming will be invited too!

[straight talker]

hopefully we can get gore to fly half way round the world in his jet to come as long as he buys carbon credits from his company, we could get mr Flannery and mr combet to come as well if they would be prepared to leave their waterfront homes or maybe even garnaut if his not running mining companies in PNG!!

[redandblack]

st, you've given no indication at all that you've read anything substantial about this topic.

Constantly repeating the same argument about individuals without offering anything constructive about the topic is tiresome and pointless.

If fish posts constructive information for you, either engage him in discussion, or come up with something new and constructive.