Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

Not at all, scoob.

The less carbon emissions, the less tax BHP will pay.

Private enterprise being what it is, BHP will do everything they can to reduce emissions.

All I am saying is that this tax isn't the big bogey disaster its opponents are claiming.

[scoob]

Not at all, scoob.

The less carbon emissions, the less tax BHP will pay.

Private enterprise being what it is, BHP will do everything they can to reduce emissions.

All I am saying is that this tax isn't the big bogey disaster its opponents are claiming.

So they will try to reduce emissions, at the same time expanding their operations which will undoubtedly increase their net emissions... A win for the carbon Tax.

It isn't the big bogey disaster for the mining companies - granted, but manufacturing companies would beg to differ, including the steel manufacturing companies that refine the products of the mining companies. So we possibly lose local manufacturing, import cheaper produced goods without regard for the carbon produced in their manufacturing and tranportation, and at the end of the line the consumer will simply pay more and get compensated so how is that reducing carbon emissions?

[redandblack]

Not at all, scoob.

The less carbon emissions, the less tax BHP will pay.

Private enterprise being what it is, BHP will do everything they can to reduce emissions.

All I am saying is that this tax isn't the big bogey disaster its opponents are claiming.

So they will try to reduce emissions, at the same time expanding their operations which will undoubtedly increase their net emissions... A win for the carbon Tax.

It isn't the big bogey disaster for the mining companies - granted, but manufacturing companies would beg to differ, including the steel manufacturing companies that refine the products of the mining companies. So we possibly lose local manufacturing, import cheaper produced goods without regard for the carbon produced in their manufacturing and tranportation, and at the end of the line the consumer will simply pay more and get compensated so how is that reducing carbon emissions?

Thanks, that's all I've been saying.

[scoob]

Not at all, scoob.

The less carbon emissions, the less tax BHP will pay.

Private enterprise being what it is, BHP will do everything they can to reduce emissions.

All I am saying is that this tax isn't the big bogey disaster its opponents are claiming.

So they will try to reduce emissions, at the same time expanding their operations which will undoubtedly increase their net emissions... A win for the carbon Tax.

It isn't the big bogey disaster for the mining companies - granted, but manufacturing companies would beg to differ, including the steel manufacturing companies that refine the products of the mining companies. So we possibly lose local manufacturing, import cheaper produced goods without regard for the carbon produced in their manufacturing and tranportation, and at the end of the line the consumer will simply pay more and get compensated so how is that reducing carbon emissions?

Thanks, that's all I've been saying.

No worries, now explain to me how it will reduce carbon emissions, like it is designed to do.

[redandblack]

Why?

I've only said it isn't the big bogey that its opponents claim and you agree with me about that.

I've previously posted the following:

"For those who want to know the broad brush of how this will work, here it is.

I don't make any statement as to whether this will work, just as an explanation.

Ms GILLARD–Let me explain in detail our mechanism for pricing carbon. The first proposition is an incredibly simple one. At the moment carbon pollution can be released into the atmosphere for free. There is no disincentive for doing that. We will put a price on carbon, a price on every unit of carbon pollution. It will be paid for by businesses and as a result, because our business community is smart and adaptable and innovative, they will work out ways of pursuing their business and generating less carbon pollution. They will work out ways of making sure they pay less of a price when carbon is priced.

Then they will enter into contracts, they will make investments on the basis of understanding the rules and understanding that carbon will be priced. And as they go about making those transitions, innovating, making the new investments of the future, we will work with those businesses in transition to a clean economy.

Having priced carbon and seen that innovation, yes, there will be pricing impacts; that is absolutely right. That is the whole point: to make goods that are generated with more carbon pollution relatively more expensive than goods that are generated with less carbon pollution. But because we are a Labor government this will be done in a fair way. We will assist households as we transition with this new carbon price.

What that means is that people will walk into a shop with money in their pocket, the government having provided them with assistance. They will see the price signals on the shelves in front of them—things with less pollution, less expensive; things with more pollution, more expensive—and they too will adapt and change. They will choose the lower pollution products, which is exactly what we want them to do. Between the business investment and innovation, between households who have been assisted in a fair way by a Labor government responding to price signals, we will see a transition to a cleaner economy, to a low-pollution economy."

[scoob]

Why?

I've only said it isn't the big bogey that its opponents claim and you agree with me about that.

I've previously posted the following:

"For those who want to know the broad brush of how this will work, here it is.

I don't make any statement as to whether this will work, just as an explanation.

Ms GILLARD–Let me explain in detail our mechanism for pricing carbon. The first proposition is an incredibly simple one. At the moment carbon pollution can be released into the atmosphere for free. There is no disincentive for doing that. We will put a price on carbon, a price on every unit of carbon pollution. It will be paid for by businesses and as a result, because our business community is smart and adaptable and innovative, they will work out ways of pursuing their business and generating less carbon pollution. They will work out ways of making sure they pay less of a price when carbon is priced.

Then they will enter into contracts, they will make investments on the basis of understanding the rules and understanding that carbon will be priced. And as they go about making those transitions, innovating, making the new investments of the future, we will work with those businesses in transition to a clean economy.

Having priced carbon and seen that innovation, yes, there will be pricing impacts; that is absolutely right. That is the whole point: to make goods that are generated with more carbon pollution relatively more expensive than goods that are generated with less carbon pollution. But because we are a Labor government this will be done in a fair way. We will assist households as we transition with this new carbon price.

What that means is that people will walk into a shop with money in their pocket, the government having provided them with assistance. They will see the price signals on the shelves in front of them—things with less pollution, less expensive; things with more pollution, more expensive—and they too will adapt and change. They will choose the lower pollution products, which is exactly what we want them to do. Between the business investment and innovation, between households who have been assisted in a fair way by a Labor government responding to price signals, we will see a transition to a cleaner economy, to a low-pollution economy."

I agreed it probably won't effect the mining industry - I don't think they will see it a s a benefit...

That explanation that you have posted is extremely vague and, in my opinion, pretty ill conceived... more and ideology than a reality, but then again I'm not too sure how much reality Gillard deals with...

[redandblack]

No worries, but it's probably a lot closer to reality than Tony Abbott's policy.

[scoob]

No worries, but it's probably a lot closer to reality than Tony Abbott's policy.

Haha... may well be Enjoyed reading the explanation though - she should teach year 8 economics, next lesson supply/demand!

[Bully]

thinking long and hard about this topic last night again (this keeps me up at night) that this tax is not really 'stopping carbon' in a way. Its a tax on the heavy users of the carbon and its not targetted on really stopping the problem. Correct me if im wrong but if people dont use certain things like the TV all night like they normally would doesnt this stop energy use??/ doesnt this stop carbon being produced as the power station would have to produce the electricty to power this TV???

isnt this the better option???


(patiently waits for fishs response on how the tax does 'stop' carbon)

[redandblack]

Bulldog, I think the theory is that people will be compensated by a certain amount. If they use less energy, the more they are in front.

I make no claim as to whether it would work this way, but it's hard to know how else to do it.

What hasn't been publicised much is that there are many countries already doing this; we're not the first ones. Even the Tories in the UK are doing it.

[dedja]

thinking long and hard about this topic last night again (this keeps me up at night) that this tax is not really 'stopping carbon' in a way. Its a tax on the heavy users of the carbon and its not targetted on really stopping the problem. Correct me if im wrong but if people dont use certain things like the TV all night like they normally would doesnt this stop energy use??/ doesnt this stop carbon being produced as the power station would have to produce the electricty to power this TV???

isnt this the better option???


(patiently waits for fishs response on how the tax does 'stop' carbon)

There is no doubt in my mind that there an enormous amount of energy wasted in our society.

At the beginning of Feb, my average daily electricity consumption for the previous 12 months was approx 38kWh. Since then I have installed an energy meter, changed all incandescent lights and halogens to compact flouro or LED, have installed a couple of power smart boards, and have turned off one of my 2 air conditioners at the meter when not in use.

The result? ... my average daily power use since the start of Feb, a touch under 3 months, is 19kWh per day, a 50% decrease.

Now whilst not completely scientific, as a large amount of my consumption is air-conditioners and this is dependent on the weather, this is a staggering decrease with minimal effort.

I'll be installing solar panels in a couple of weeks and expect my power bill to be in credit after this.

I despair when I go to work and see the amount of power just needlessly wasted. I manage 2 large data centres in the city and am working on a long term strategy to significantly reduce power consumption, which is not an easy thing to do with the dense, high powered servers of today.

If everyone took the same approach, then I'd consevatively estimate that we could save at least 20% of total power usage ... that's a free 20% reduction in pollution from power stations.

Now back to the carbon tax ... noble idea but I'm yet to be convinced that it's the correct mechanism to effect the required changes.

We shall see ...

[Bully]

thats the point i have been trying to make all along this forum since i have replied as an alternative to another TAX by the government

STOP watching TV all night....this reduces energy use which STOPS carbon

Stop being on the computer all night....this stops energy usage which STOPS carbon(read a book one night or do a crossword puzzle maybe)
Unplug your TV from the wall each night...stops it on stand by which STOPS producing carbon
Unplug your phone charger once its charged the phone...STOPS producing carbon.

ALot of alternatives there to stop energy use to stop producing carbon to stop this stupid tax

[dedja]

thats the point i have been trying to make all along this forum since i have replied as an alternative to another TAX by the government

STOP watching TV all night....this reduces energy use which STOPS carbon

Stop being on the computer all night....this stops energy usage which STOPS carbon(read a book one night or do a crossword puzzle maybe)
Unplug your TV from the wall each night...stops it on stand by which STOPS producing carbon
Unplug your phone charger once its charged the phone...STOPS producing carbon.

ALot of alternatives there to stop energy use to stop producing carbon to stop this stupid tax

Not if you use a laptop ...

[Bully]

thats the point i have been trying to make all along this forum since i have replied as an alternative to another TAX by the government

STOP watching TV all night....this reduces energy use which STOPS carbon

Stop being on the computer all night....this stops energy usage which STOPS carbon(read a book one night or do a crossword puzzle maybe)
Unplug your TV from the wall each night...stops it on stand by which STOPS producing carbon
Unplug your phone charger once its charged the phone...STOPS producing carbon.

ALot of alternatives there to stop energy use to stop producing carbon to stop this stupid tax

Not if you use a laptop ...

when the battery goes flat?? dont you need to charge it

[dedja]

Yep, when the solar panel are generating power from the sun ...

[Bully]

well the world is ment to end on the 21/12/2012 according to the religons so we wont have to worry about all this on the 22/12/2012

[fish]

(patiently waits for fishs response on how the tax does 'stop' carbon)

Thanks for your patience bulldog.

The important thing to remember is that the carbon tax is just a short term step towards a 'cap and trade' carbon system which will be implemented after three to five years.

In simple terms, in a 'cap and trade' system the government limits the amount of carbon that can be emitted nationwide in the year, and carbon emitters have to buy or trade the right to emit carbon. As a result heavy emitters will have to pay more than light emitters, making low-carbon industries more economically viable than high-carbon industries. The total amount of carbon that can be emitted is reduced each year. This will see Australia making its fair share of the cuts in emissions required to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The forthcoming carbon tax is, as I understand it, a way to set our economy up for a 'cap and trade' system by putting a starting price on carbon. The direct result of the carbon tax is to make low-emission products and services more economically viable than high-emission products and services. It will also serve to encourage people to reduce their carbon emissions by providing an economic incentive: less carbon emitted = less carbon tax paid.

[Psyber]

...people and companies with low carbon emissions will be better off as they will avoid some of the tax. I suspect that people with high emissions lifestyles will be hardest hit.

Continuing on from this point I've had a bit of a look around for carbon emission calculators, which enable you to estimate your carbon emissions based on your household and travel practices. There are a fair few around - some are more user-friendly than others and some include or don't include various aspects of consumption/waste.

This one seems OK - relatively straightforward and it also has explanations and tips for reducing your emissions as you proceed. It will give you an estimate of your emissions and how they compare to the Australian average.

I started out to run through this but I'm going to have to dig out the last 12 months accounts and calculate an average Kwh/month.
My lowest bill (summer) was $350 but the highest in the winter quarter was $1450 - I'm hoping to do better this year as I was post-operative then, not very active, and feeling the cold.
I'd save electricity by burning my combustion heater in the winter, as I have lots of free wood handy, but I'm not sure that may not be worse for the environment..
It was great in the Dandenong Ranges where there was natural gas piped up to the hills and I could use efficient Hydronic heating, which is unaffordable depending on LPG or electricity here.

On the positive side of the balance, I have 0.9 of an acre and have counted 50 trees on it so far - I'll work out a full total some time.

[Bully]

(patiently waits for fishs response on how the tax does 'stop' carbon)

Thanks for your patience bulldog.

The important thing to remember is that the carbon tax is just a short term step towards a 'cap and trade' carbon system which will be implemented after three to five years.

In simple terms, in a 'cap and trade' system the government limits the amount of carbon that can be emitted nationwide in the year, and carbon emitters have to buy or trade the right to emit carbon. As a result heavy emitters will have to pay more than light emitters, making low-carbon industries more economically viable than high-carbon industries. The total amount of carbon that can be emitted is reduced each year. This will see Australia making its fair share of the cuts in emissions required to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The forthcoming carbon tax is, as I understand it, a way to set our economy up for a 'cap and trade' system by putting a starting price on carbon. The direct result of the carbon tax is to make low-emission products and services more economically viable than high-emission products and services. It will also serve to encourage people to reduce their carbon emissions by providing an economic incentive: less carbon emitted = less carbon tax paid.

still not seeing the benefits of this tax sorry Fish where there is other alternatives to stop carbon entering the atmosphere. Wont repeat myself again on the small things that count to alot on stopping carbon and energy being used

[redandblack]

Right or wrong, a least they have a policy they believe in.

Here's Phil Coorey on the opposition's (rarely) inspected 'policy'.

Another argument put forward by the opposition is simply disingenuous when contrasted against its own actions and that is that the carbon scheme will have no meaningful impact in reducing global emissions.

''Whatever your views are, there is one absolute fact that this tax is going to do nothing to the climate,'' the Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce said last week.

Well may this be the case but if so, why is the opposition promising to blow billions from the budget on direct action measures to achieve the exact same reductions in emissions that the government's carbon tax will aim to achieve?

The Coalition says its direct action plan - which eschews a market mechanism and instead shells out money to polluters to buy reductions in emissions - will cost about $3.5 billion over the forward estimates and about $11 billion by 2020. The Climate Change Department estimates it will cost three times that.

Either way, why spend billions to achieve a purpose you publicly ridicule. It shows less principle than the government which at least professes to believe in climate change and the worth of Australia doing its bit.

If the Coalition were honest, it would do nothing and be proud of it. Instead, it's having a very expensive bet each way just in case.