Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[straight talker]

[Q.]

Oh fishmeister we at last agree.

Oh dear I must've turned into one of those shock jocks!

Oh no Fish. Next thing you know you'll be getting cash for comment from Banks and inciting race riots at Cronulla.

Or organising partisan rallies when you are meant to be an impartial wing of the media.

[straight talker]

dont want to talk about the phone call that was made allegedly from a labor carbon tax believer thug threatening abbott??? if it was a placard that said something about juliar ys would all be up in arms!

[fish]

...why do some get payed to pollute and not others? But no-body on this site knows the answer!

I must have missed this ST - who is being paid to pollute? And by whom?

Just going through some old posts and realised we are still waiting for an answer to this ST - who is being paid to pollute? And by whom?

[straight talker]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government! just another cock up from the labor/greens/independant government.

[fish]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government!

ST the compensation will only cover part of what companies pay for the carbon tax. These companies will be paying to pollute, not the other way round.

[Wedgie]

Guys, Ive gone through and removed a heap of posts to try and get this chat back on track, some were fine but some were replies to replies to replies, etc of silly or abusive posts. This forum normally runs itself so if you want to join in on it please have a look at the tone and way people normally speak to each other in here and try and uphold that. People will always disagree on politics but its no reason to start abusing fellow posters.
Cheers.

[straight talker]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government!

ST the compensation will only cover part of what companies pay for the carbon tax. These companies will be paying to pollute, not the other way round.

i understand that fish but why give them any compensation at all? If you pollute you pay full tote odds its that simple if the government was fair dinkum thats what would happen. and just the top 500 come on i dont think thats setting a good example and telling the people of the world that we are seriously trying to do something about carbon so its ok for everyone else to pollute outside of the top 500? Fair i wouldnt think so, Fair dinkum i wouldnt think so.

[straight talker]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government!

ST the compensation will only cover part of what companies pay for the carbon tax. These companies will be paying to pollute, not the other way round.

i understand that fish but why give them any compensation at all? If you pollute you pay full tote odds its that simple if the government was fair dinkum thats what would happen. and just the top 500 come on i dont think thats setting a good example and telling the people of the world that we are seriously trying to do something about carbon so its ok for everyone else to pollute outside of the top 500? Fair i wouldnt think so, Fair dinkum i wouldnt think so.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... nt&src=rab
first it was no carbon tax then it was the top 1000 polluters then it was 500 now it seems it will be 400!

[fish]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government!

ST the compensation will only cover part of what companies pay for the carbon tax. These companies will be paying to pollute, not the other way round.

i understand that fish but why give them any compensation at all? If you pollute you pay full tote odds its that simple if the government was fair dinkum thats what would happen. and just the top 500 come on i dont think thats setting a good example and telling the people of the world that we are seriously trying to do something about carbon so its ok for everyone else to pollute outside of the top 500? Fair i wouldnt think so, Fair dinkum i wouldnt think so.

Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that a climate change denier who has posted virtually nothing other than doom and gloom predictions about the carbon tax is now saying that the most vulnerable industries should not be paid compensation and that the tax should apply to more industries.

As I've stated previously, 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.

By the way - glad you now understand that nobody is being paid to pollute.

[dedja]

By the way - glad you now understand that nobody is being paid to pollute.

hallelujah ...

[Squawk]

very obvious really fish. companies that pollute are getting compensation from the government!

ST the compensation will only cover part of what companies pay for the carbon tax. These companies will be paying to pollute, not the other way round.

i understand that fish but why give them any compensation at all? If you pollute you pay full tote odds its that simple if the government was fair dinkum thats what would happen. and just the top 500 come on i dont think thats setting a good example and telling the people of the world that we are seriously trying to do something about carbon so its ok for everyone else to pollute outside of the top 500? Fair i wouldnt think so, Fair dinkum i wouldnt think so.

The Carbon Tax model is a poor one IMHO. The govt is trying to have its cake and eat it too, by compensating "9/10" Australians and only targetting the top 500 polluters. If they were serious, they would put up a model that offers a price incentive to EVERYONE to reduce their carbon footprint. If "9/10" Australians will be compensated, then why would they bother reducing their carbon footprints, for any reason other than the 'feel good' factor? As I've said before, one example would be to reduce fuel excise by say 5cents per litre and substitute it with a carbon tax of a similar amount or slightly more. But the Govt would see that as far too risky, politically, apart from the fact it would upset the plans for a surplus. So honestly, how committed are they to reducing carbon emissions, and how committed are they to 'being seen' to be doing something that virtually amounts to nothing?

[Q.]

Domestic carbon emissions are a fraction of the proportion that the selected 500 companies contribute. That's why those 500 were targeted.

Yes, there isn't any direct incentive for households to increase their energy efficiency given that most people will end up with more money in their pocket thanks to the redistribution of wealth, however, given the mass publicity of the issue, households would be stupid not to pocket the extra money AND reduce household cost via adopting energy efficient methods.

[Squawk]

Domestic carbon emissions are a fraction of the proportion that the selected 500 companies contribute. That's why those 500 were targeted.

Yes, there isn't any direct incentive for households to increase their energy efficiency given that most people will end up with more money in their pocket thanks to the redistribution of wealth, however, given the mass publicity of the issue, households would be stupid not to pocket the extra money AND reduce household cost via adopting energy efficient methods.

Re the bold text - this is what has become the real issue out of what could have been a sensible issue - reducing carbon emissions.

Re the italics - householders will be stupid about it when they are getting compensated. Notwithstanding household emissions are not on the same scale as industrial emissions, the carbon tax has as its heart, a principle at stake.

It's like having a law for some and a sentencing regime to go with it; and a similar but different law for others with a different sentencing regime.

If this Govt was truly committed to the principle, then their tax regime should reflect that.

To use an analogy here in SA, water costs have gone up 30% or similar to pay for the desal plant. In essence, everyone now has a cost incentive to reduce water consumption. Unfortunately, two flaws in this model are that industrial water users pay less for their water, and household water users pay a base rate linked to property value which, like the basis for council rates, is another joke.

[Q.]

I don't disagree with you Squawk. How do we change domestic habits without punishing low and middle income earners at the hip pocket?

[Squawk]

I don't disagree with you Squawk. How do we change domestic habits without punishing low and middle income earners at the hip pocket?

Therein lies the challenge, hence the govt's "cake and eat it too" approach.

If the principle of a carbon tax is about reducing environmental impacts, then everyone needs to bear the costs associated with it. Politically, the reality is that in 2011, that is a difficult case to make out. If it had been done in 2007 when Rudd came to power on a pledge to sign Kyoto and other like initiatives, (and also pre-GFC), then it wouldn't be an issue.

I guess "tax redistribution" like my fuel excise example is a good option - but the govt isn't keen to redistribute its budget revenue and take a hit in its own hip pocket.

FWIW I would have never 'accepted' that terminology of "carbon tax" either - I would have called it a "pollution penalty" or something like that.

[bulldogproud2]

Won't the fact that electricity prices are rising cause people to look at ways of minimising their use of electricity and hence carbon?? People still very much have an incentive to become energy-conscious.

[bulldogproud2]

Domestic carbon emissions are a fraction of the proportion that the selected 500 companies contribute. That's why those 500 were targeted.

Yes, there isn't any direct incentive for households to increase their energy efficiency given that most people will end up with more money in their pocket thanks to the redistribution of wealth, however, given the mass publicity of the issue, households would be stupid not to pocket the extra money AND reduce household cost via adopting energy efficient methods.

Despite being compensated, there is still reason for people to increase their energy efficiency. Just because someone gives you a windfall of, let's say, $200, why should you not also try to save an extra bit by cutting down your electricity usage and, therefore, costs, particularly as electricity costs are rising substantially. Do the sensible thing, take the compensation but also gain a bit more by reducing your bills.
Cheers

[Q.]

Why not? Because common sense is not all that common.

[bulldogproud2]

Why not? Because common sense is not all that common.

Unfortunately, I can't argue with that!