Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

I could easily get his name if you really wanted it

Ah, that explains a lot

[Sky Pilot]

Sky Pilot....SAFooty's Mr Julian Assange

Gold

[Q.]

Candid, funny, but lengthy blog entry that sums up my thoughts very well:

http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/

Three days on from Julia Gillard’s policy announcement, and the most striking characteristic of the carbon tax debate is just how closely it resembles a dozen retards trying to **** a doorknob. The only apparent solution is a massive airdop of Xanax into our reservoirs, because really, everyone needs a few deep breaths and a spell in the quiet corner.

Sure, the weeks leading up have all been hysteria: Tony Abbott marching that bulldog grimace up and down the length of the country, like a Cassandra made of old leather and stunted dreams, cawing grim warnings of imminent ruin and destruction at the gates of Troy. But you might have expected, once the details had been released, there would arrive a little more perspective.

Nothing doing.

Far from being objective carriers of information, media outlets have been trying to manufacture furore. “Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax,” warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. “Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living.”

$9.90.

Cry me the mother ******* Nile.

[Barto]

I love this quote and it's something I've felt for a long time anyway, because when it really starts to bite, I'll either be old or dead and I wont have kids who have to live through it:

Perversely, part of me wants to see what would happen if the sea levels rise a couple of metres, the coastal cities get swamped, the rainfall dries up, the power goes out, the militias take to the streets. Part of me would love to see these squawking indignant right-to-luxury dickwipes learning how to live in the dust, scraping out dried plants from the earth and hoarding their remnants from the Beforetime. It’ll be a sight if it happens.

[Dirko]

Sorry if this is going over old shit, but is this right;

The tax is designed to help Australia cut our CO2 emissions yeah?

And by 2020, Ranga is boasting we will have cut our CO2 emissions by 160 million tons

However, as per the Governments own documents, that target will be met by Australia only reducing our CO2 emissions by 60 million tons.

http://afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2011/07/10/Photos/78db4c00-aaa0-11e0-9cd3-fc762ff2ab5c_02%20Key%20points%20and%20Overview.pdf

Huh? But where does the rest come from. Credits purchased overseas.

Something like 4billion leaving the shores...

Sounds like a plan

[southee]

Sorry if this is going over old ****, but is this right;

The tax is designed to help Australia cut our CO2 emissions yeah?

And by 2020, Ranga is boasting we will have cut our CO2 emissions by 160 million tons

However, as per the Governments own documents, that target will be met by Australia only reducing our CO2 emissions by 60 million tons.

http://afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2011/07/10/Photos/78db4c00-aaa0-11e0-9cd3-fc762ff2ab5c_02%20Key%20points%20and%20Overview.pdf

Huh? But where does the rest come from. Credits purchased overseas.

Something like 4billion leaving the shores...

Sounds like a plan

With about 6% interest on that too .....intelligent stuff!!!

[Q.]

Sorry if this is going over old ****, but is this right;

The tax is designed to help Australia cut our CO2 emissions yeah?

And by 2020, Ranga is boasting we will have cut our CO2 emissions by 160 million tons

However, as per the Governments own documents, that target will be met by Australia only reducing our CO2 emissions by 60 million tons.

http://afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2011/07/10/Photos/78db4c00-aaa0-11e0-9cd3-fc762ff2ab5c_02%20Key%20points%20and%20Overview.pdf

Huh? But where does the rest come from. Credits purchased overseas.

Something like 4billion leaving the shores...

Sounds like a plan

With about 6% interest on that too .....intelligent stuff!!!

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/12/carbon-tax-international-permits-and-liberals/

The point of international permits is that they enable lowest-cost abatement. Countries where abatement can be achieved at a lower cost than Australia can provide us with abatement that is as effective as our own. In Hunt’s own words from last year “a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon”. This is particularly beneficial for Australia, which is so heavily dependent on cheap coal that abatement costs will be higher than for many other countries.

...

That the Coalition had no problem with relying on foreign permits under the CPRS and wants international agreements for its own preferred type of abatement, but now attacks them to the extent it suits their agenda, is a particularly impressive combination of economic irrationalism and hypocrisy. Far better than the CPRS, this package strikes a balance between sourcing lowest-cost abatement and driving domestic decarbonisation.

[Sojourner]

Mentioned on the news yesterday that Petrol is to be exempt, but not heavy vehicles, and that Trans Adelaide have to pay the Carbon Tax and that the cost of the tax would be going onto the cost of Multi Trips to compensate?

My understanding is that the Carbon Tax is supposed to be about lessening pollution, not making it more expensive for people to use public transport and cheaper by comparison simply to take the car to work. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that Public Transport being something that has the capacity to reduce carbon for the wider community should be exempt from the tax? - If anything, lowering ticket prices would be a good way to increase the number of users and actually take cars that emit pollution off the road. One would think that one good use of the funds raised from the tax would be to invest into Public Transport and not to simply whiteant it in the process as is currently being proposed?

[Dirko]

Mentioned on the news yesterday that Petrol is to be exempt, but not heavy vehicles, and that Trans Adelaide have to pay the Carbon Tax and that the cost of the tax would be going onto the cost of Multi Trips to compensate?

And there Ladies & Gentlemen is the killer. Australia relies heavily on heavy transport to get produce, and just about everything you buy around this vast nation of ours, to shops/retailers etc etc.

So you think the Truck Companies will absorb the tax to run the trucks ? No chance. They'll just increase the cost of transporting goods as their costs have gone up, which mean the cost of transportation will then be passed onto the users of the transport, who'll then pass the cost on to the end consumers ie us.

But hey, she'll be right! We'll pay for it!

[redandblack]

What do you think of the huge investment in renewable energy in the carbon tax package, Sojourner?

SJABC, have you visited the Govt website to see what your tax position would be?

[Dirko]

SJABC, have you visited the Govt website to see what your tax position would be?

Yep and surprise surprise we're not covered by the scenario I listed which shouldn't be to hard "main income plus a little bit of supplementary income and 3 kids" = "our web site is too shit to work it out"

I'd like to know how accurate the tax position calculator, is anyhow. How can they predict exactly how much extra suppliers will raise their costs to absorb the tax.

[Bat Pad]

I too was thinking a lot about the effect this will have on Public Transport. Yesterday I purchased my Mutitrip and it had gone up by 90 cents from last week. Now I honestly think this was just a coincidence. It hadnt gone up for a while and they usually go up by around that amount every 6 months. But I will be interested to see how long it takes for the next rise.

[Bat Pad]

What do you think of the huge investment in renewable energy in the carbon tax package, Sojourner?

SJABC, have you visited the Govt website to see what your tax position would be?

I thought the tax was mean't to be a market based mechanism and the renewable energies would receive more investment due to the cost of dirty energy? Why do they need the investment?

[redandblack]

?

They want to have businesses invest in renewable energy.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I don't think anyone is against that sort of investment, surely?

It's far more a market based mechanism than not. The Opposition's Direct Action plan certainly isn't?

[Q.]

The consequences of repealing a carbon price

There are other consequences to repeal, perhaps more esoteric. Repeal of the scheme would be a strong signal to the international community that Australia wants no role in any international action to combat climate change. Running interference in climate negotiations, and trying to extract the best deal from them, as the Howard government did, is one thing. Actively sabotaging an operational domestic abatement scheme is quite different, and the international community is unlikely to regard the Coalition’s risible “direct action” policy as any sort of replacement. The possibility of retaliatory action, particularly from Europe, towards Australian exports will have to be considered.

The other consequence is blunter. Should a carbon pricing scheme be legislated and implemented, and then be repealed, it will be a clear signal that parliamentary politics simply cannot cope with the policy challenge of climate change. Those who take the need to curb emissions seriously — particularly younger people, who will pay the price of climate change — will be forced to consider other alternatives. The most logical one is taking “direct action” of their own, to shut down our most emissions-intensive industries — think the dirtiest power stations — and stop emissions-intensive exports such as coal.

Given the repeal of a functional carbon pricing scheme, they will have a strong moral justification, as well as policy rationale, for doing so.

[redandblack]

I agree with the first paragraph of that and strongly disagree with the second, if I read it correctly.

There's no room in Australia for that sort of action, just as I've been saying the same about shock-jocks whipping up false hate.

[Q.]

Depends on how you perceive 'direct action' and 'shut down'.

[Bat Pad]

?

They want to have businesses invest in renewable energy.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I don't think anyone is against that sort of investment, surely?

It's far more a market based mechanism than not. The Opposition's Direct Action plan certainly isn't?

I thought the government were investing approx. $10 Billion into the renewable energy sector. I thought that is what you were referring to.

The issue I have is with this being called a Market Based Mechanism, and them using that as an attack on the opposition, with them obviously being from the right.

Playing favourites with providers (rightly or wrongly), giving compensation, capping prices etc. is market manipulation.

Now many people believe that's the way to go. Fine, but lets call a spade a spade.

[redandblack]

That's fine, but how else would you do it?

The PM wants to move to a ETS in 3 years and the government had an ETS rejected by the Opposition last term.

Do you think that the Opposition plan to pay the polluters is far worse?

Perhaps not?

[Bat Pad]

That's fine, but how else would you do it?

The PM wants to move to a ETS in 3 years and the government had an ETS rejected by the Opposition last term.

Do you think that the Opposition plan to pay the polluters is far worse?

Perhaps not?

I would remove the ban on Nuclear Power myself. Then there would be a cleam technology that doesn't require handouts to compete with dirty technology. They would be the most competitvely priced energy source in the market.

3 years, why not just do it now? Or was a swift introduction poor policy 4 years ago when she approved of it as Deputy PM?

I think paying polluters to change is far more likely to make them change than taxing them if they don't. They have an inbuilt mechanism to protect their profit margins against expenditure increases. But they never say no to free money. Incentive always out trumps punishment.

However I do not think that is the answer.

Both parties plans are half measured cobbled up rubbish.