Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Carbon Tax May Work after 1000 years!!!

Reply
Created by cisco > 9 months ago, 30 Mar 2011
log man
VIC, 8289 posts
4 Apr 2011 4:28PM
Thumbs Up

Don't we have to be a bit more sophisticated with the "liar" tag. I don't think Gillard knowingly told a lie. I'm not trying to split hairs here but you have to look at the situation before and after the election. The Labor parties platform was to go with the ETS , however it was defeated in the senate by the conservatives AND the greens. So election time comes and the greens and indis have the balance of power. The greens support the carbon tax proposal that the Labor party didn't want, so Gillard compromised with the greens and took the opportunity to get some form of price on carbon. So, that for me isn't a lie, in the same way that Howards introduction of the GST also wasn't a lie. Howard said a GST was dead and buried, then changed his mind and stood at an election on that platform ....and won. I recon that's fair enough.

lightwood
VIC, 392 posts
4 Apr 2011 5:14PM
Thumbs Up

Price on carbon. lol .Maybe jools should take that to an election.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
4 Apr 2011 5:32PM
Thumbs Up

It's been Labor party policy since 2007. I think we know where she stands on it.

lightwood
VIC, 392 posts
4 Apr 2011 6:00PM
Thumbs Up

A price on carbon (read a tax on carbon dioxide) has been a labor policy since 2007? Are you a labor PR guy?





Anyway moving forward.



Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
4 Apr 2011 6:01PM
Thumbs Up

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
4 Apr 2011 4:53PM
Thumbs Up

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".


Dead rite.... they will loose me if they pass it! Just a prob! who will I vote for??????

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
4 Apr 2011 7:53PM
Thumbs Up

@felix: http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1174&Itemid=292

Look I told y'all last year, or when ever it stabbed Kevin right smack in the middle of his back, that that's what it would do to Y'ALL.

So suck it up.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
4 Apr 2011 11:58PM
Thumbs Up

Lightwood you said" A price on carbon(a carbon dioxide tax)has been labor policy since 2007". Do you get that The ETS scheme, put to the senate.... twice and defeated is a different scheme to the carbon tax scheme. OK so they are both Carbon Dioxide schemes but mate here's your choice Vote Labor or green and get the tax or vote conservative and don't get the tax. It's straight forward do what you think is right. Oh and you accuse me of being a labor PR guy but you're the only one to post an add from the Liberal party...... endorsed by Eric Abetz, of all people

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
5 Apr 2011 12:01AM
Thumbs Up

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".


If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
5 Apr 2011 12:14AM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

@felix: http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1174&Itemid=292

Look I told y'all last year, or when ever it stabbed Kevin right smack in the middle of his back, that that's what it would do to Y'ALL.

So suck it up.



Flysurfer, or should we say Nostradamus. Political Crystal ball soothsayer as well as global warming expert.

Carantoc
WA, 6650 posts
4 Apr 2011 11:19PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".


If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"


Be careful there not to mistake what you believe a carbon tax should do :

introduce a free market mechanism that leads to a reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide greater than could be acheived through other forms of government intervention

and what the proposed one in its current undefined form is tending towards :

introduce a carbon tax that is torn between penalising emitters to subdue the Greens, and compensating the consumer to subdue the independants, all the while failing to acheive either a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or a promotion of alternate technologies. The end result being a great potential ****edover by politicians into another bland shambles of a tax, so increasing the complexity of tax legislation while failing to deliver any comparable benefit


lightwood
VIC, 392 posts
5 Apr 2011 8:36AM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

Lightwood you said" A price on carbon(a carbon dioxide tax)has been labor policy since 2007". Do you get that The ETS scheme, put to the senate.... twice and defeated is a different scheme to the carbon tax scheme. OK so they are both Carbon Dioxide schemes but mate here's your choice Vote Labor or green and get the tax or vote conservative and don't get the tax. It's straight forward do what you think is right. Oh and you accuse me of being a labor PR guy but you're the only one to post an add from the Liberal party...... endorsed by Eric Abetz, of all people



Thats the problem log man, we dont get a choice. Unlike Jonny and his GST, jools is going to try and force this on the people with out any say. As pointed out, she knows she would be smashed if it went to an election. Gutless politics.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
5 Apr 2011 10:47AM
Thumbs Up

I really don't know where to start. If Howard had defeated Rudd at the 2007 election we would have a Carbon Trading Scheme, it was Coalitition policy at that election right up to the point where Turnbull was, (to use the Flysurfer vernacular)STABBED IN THE BACK BY THE LIAR ABBOTT. So the last 3 Coalition leaders would have either backed a carbon price or instituted a carbon price in government themselves albeit Abbott seems to want to keep his options open depending who he's talking to at the time. So if you took a ballot of all members of parliament the numbers would definitely be with the Carbon Tax. So what!! well, I just find the outrage kind of puzzling, Is it all "the tax", is it "the Lie" or is it that climate change is "a scam". To me the noises coming from the government seem to suggest the tax will be moderate with offsets PAID to lower and middle income people. "the Lie", to me is harsh , considering to lie is to knowingly tell a lie, political opportunism,slipperyness, yep fair enough but "lie" mmmmm. and then there's the science of climate change, and wherever you stand on that the winner will be the science. After all, incorrect science always gets replaced by better science and that only seems to be heading in one direction. I tell you what though, there's still this horrible mysogynistic stink about the opposition to anything the government does. Lightwood I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Kirner state labor government and the extreme feeling that came from the conservative media towards her but it seems to me the same low blows are being aimed at Gillard. I'm not saying both of those governments were/are perfect , but man, the attacks have a viciousness that's says to me there's more to this hate than just policy.

lightwood
VIC, 392 posts
5 Apr 2011 11:07AM
Thumbs Up

Logman being in Vic I would imagine we both read the same papers, I belive they go easy on jools compaired to some of the past leaders, both state and federal. If Jonny had blown as much dough as Labor has in the last 4 years it would be front page every day of the week.

Gunna1
154 posts
5 Apr 2011 3:02PM
Thumbs Up

Hey Logman, for those with short memories, let's not forget how she got the job in the first place. We all know all you tell a Pollie lying because his/her lips are moving. Most of them will beat around the bush a bit and try to cloud the issue, Ranga can look straight into the camera and lie without even blushing, that is the difference.

getfunky
WA, 4485 posts
5 Apr 2011 4:54PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

I really don't know where to start. If Howard had defeated Rudd at the 2007 election we would have a Carbon Trading Scheme, it was Coalitition policy at that election right up to the point where Turnbull was, (to use the Flysurfer vernacular)STABBED IN THE BACK BY THE LIAR ABBOTT. So the last 3 Coalition leaders would have either backed a carbon price or instituted a carbon price in government themselves albeit Abbott seems to want to keep his options open depending who he's talking to at the time. So if you took a ballot of all members of parliament the numbers would definitely be with the Carbon Tax. So what!! well, I just find the outrage kind of puzzling, Is it all "the tax", is it "the Lie" or is it that climate change is "a scam". To me the noises coming from the government seem to suggest the tax will be moderate with offsets PAID to lower and middle income people. "the Lie", to me is harsh , considering to lie is to knowingly tell a lie, political opportunism,slipperyness, yep fair enough but "lie" mmmmm. and then there's the science of climate change, and wherever you stand on that the winner will be the science. After all, incorrect science always gets replaced by better science and that only seems to be heading in one direction. I tell you what though, there's still this horrible mysogynistic stink about the opposition to anything the government does. Lightwood I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Kirner state labor government and the extreme feeling that came from the conservative media towards her but it seems to me the same low blows are being aimed at Gillard. I'm not saying both of those governments were/are perfect , but man, the attacks have a viciousness that's says to me there's more to this hate than just policy.


Spot on Log.

I am constantly amazed at the obvious misogynistic language used in referance to Gillard, here and in the media as a whole. You would be easily mistaken to think that the Labor party were simply one publically despised woman. You could also be confused that the word woman was a derogatory term and that it was not 1950 in the bloke's only front bar.

Reckon Abbot wouldn't have changed his pre-election promises and jumped in bed with the independant's and Green's philosophies? Wake up.

Honestly - left/right/red/blue or bloody pink polka dots, someone in this frkn jellyfish country needs to have the gumption to make unpopular decisions for our ultimate welfare and the future. When the time comes, I'm votin for them. But I reckon I am by far in the minority.

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
5 Apr 2011 5:01PM
Thumbs Up

Gunna1 said...

Hey Logman, for those with short memories, let's not forget how she got the job in the first place. We all know all you tell a Pollie lying because his/her lips are moving. Most of them will beat around the bush a bit and try to cloud the issue, Ranga can look straight into the camera and lie without even blushing, that is the difference.


So she is the finest of the best pollie!!!???

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
6 Apr 2011 12:39AM
Thumbs Up

Gunna1 said...

Hey Logman, for those with short memories, let's not forget how she got the job in the first place. We all know all you tell a Pollie lying because his/her lips are moving. Most of them will beat around the bush a bit and try to cloud the issue, Ranga can look straight into the camera and lie without even blushing, that is the difference.


Gunna 1 , News flash....politician challenges for leadership of party ...... astounding. Mate I don't know if you've been out of the loop for awhile but that's what happens. Keating deposed Hawke(after 2 attempts) , Beazley ****ed up Crean, Rudd got rid of Beasley,and Gillard deposed Rudd. Same on the other side Howard,Peacock,Howard,Downer,Turnbull, Abbott. I almost put in Costello as a office holder of the Liberal party but then I remembered what a chicken hearted disapointment he was. Gunna1 you do yourself no favours though with the "all pollies are liars" **** and the big fat salaries and the perks, the free cars and the like . This would have to be the biggest load of old cobblers ever, sure if you watch "today Tonight" your sure to find some ****ty story about some polli claiming too much on his car allowance or some **** . OK Here's the reality..... ALL federal politicians work really hard, it's a demanding job and the ones I've met( on both sides ) do a bloody good job. There's bugger all financial reward, I think a Backbencher gets about 110,000 per year for working 7 days on call, on duty every time he goes out the door. Just ask someone like Barnaby Joyce how many kilometres per year he travels only to be looked on as some kind of blood sucker . I know this is unpopular with some people who love to bag pollies but it is the most bogus argument. Do we think that people like Turnbull,Brandis,Bishop, Rudd,Wong etc are in politics for money? Brandis and Wong are QC's and could earn a politicians salary in a week and a half at the Bar. Every politician I've met has one thing in common ; they want to change the country for the better. Of course just about all from the Right I despise but I respect (nearly) all of them.

Gorgo
VIC, 4982 posts
6 Apr 2011 3:41PM
Thumbs Up

An alternative to a tax on the producers of carbon is to tax the consumers of carbon. ie. Us.

If you do that then there is no need for industries take their CO2 producing industries offshore. No matter where the product is produced it still has to be sold here and the carbon levy is the same.

Use the money earned to compensate the poor and to subsidise the development of non-CO2 producing alternatives.

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
6 Apr 2011 4:24PM
Thumbs Up

Gorgo said...

An alternative to a tax on the producers of carbon is to tax the consumers of carbon. ie. Us.

If you do that then there is no need for industries take their CO2 producing industries offshore. No matter where the product is produced it still has to be sold here and the carbon levy is the same.

Use the money earned to compensate the poor and to subsidise the development of non-CO2 producing alternatives.


Hang on! Isn't that Abott's policy in a nutshell? Except he wants to tax us and give the money to the polluters. I'm sure it is. This week anyway.

Carantoc
WA, 6650 posts
6 Apr 2011 4:07PM
Thumbs Up

Carantoc said...

log man said...

Mobydisc said...

The ALP will be flogged at the next federal election. Introducing a tax on production that will send many businesses broke and will cost around $1K a year to the average household is not a policy that will go down well with the "silent majority".


If that's your summary of the Carbon Tax maybe you should rename yourself the "Stupid Majority"


Be careful there not to mistake what you believe a carbon tax should do :

introduce a free market mechanism that leads to a reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide greater than could be acheived through other forms of government intervention

and what the proposed one in its current undefined form is tending towards :

introduce a carbon tax that is torn between penalising emitters to subdue the Greens, and compensating the consumer to subdue the independants, all the while failing to acheive either a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or a promotion of alternate technologies. The end result being a great potential ****edover by politicians into another bland shambles of a tax, so increasing the complexity of tax legislation while failing to deliver any comparable benefit





Then again the carbon tax will never last 1000 years.

It is designed to be the precuser to an ETS in 5 years time, and to be fair, probably not a bad was of introducing an ETS

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
6 Apr 2011 6:49PM
Thumbs Up

Gorgo said...

This is the Liberal party policy on CO2.

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx

In brief they will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund spending $3.6 billion over 4 years.

They will spend that money on:
- sequestering carbon in soil (major plank)
- a bit of fiddling about with renewables (solar power and stuff at schools)


... and since the only people who need to sequester carbon will be the polluters, that means taking money off me to give to the polluters doesn't it? For a plan (sequestration) that's never been proven and may or may not work. Doesn't it??

Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
6 Apr 2011 7:08PM
Thumbs Up

If CO2 is such an issue why doesn't the government buy up a lot of useless land and then plant fast growing eucalyptus trees that can be harvested every 10 years or so and used in the building industry for housing frames? Wood is basically carbon that has been sucked out of the atmosphere and using the wood in construction will lock it up for a very long time.

I read about a German/American chemist who is developing a CO2 scrubber that will collect CO2 from the atmosphere and then use it to feed bacteria that give hydro carbons as a waste product. Thus the CO2 scrubber is a little petrol factory. This apparently isn't some flakey stuff but is legit and is being backed by Exxon.

If the Aussie federal government backed this sort of technology instead of big energy companies then we would have a chance of making use of it instead of it being locked away.



doggie
WA, 15849 posts
6 Apr 2011 5:08PM
Thumbs Up

SomeOtherGuy said...

Gorgo said...

This is the Liberal party policy on CO2.

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx

In brief they will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund spending $3.6 billion over 4 years.

They will spend that money on:
- sequestering carbon in soil (major plank)
- a bit of fiddling about with renewables (solar power and stuff at schools)


... and since the only people who need to sequester carbon will be the polluters, that means taking money off me to give to the polluters doesn't it? For a plan (sequestration) that's never been proven and may or may not work. Doesn't it??




SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
6 Apr 2011 7:21PM
Thumbs Up

OI! Where did you get my photo album doggie?? Please give it back. UNstained!

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
6 Apr 2011 5:28PM
Thumbs Up

SomeOtherGuy said...

OI! Where did you get my photo album doggie?? Please give it back. UNstained!


To late

cisco
QLD, 12326 posts
7 Apr 2011 2:10PM
Thumbs Up

Mobydisc said...

If CO2 is such an issue why doesn't the government buy up a lot of useless land and then plant fast growing eucalyptus trees that can be harvested every 10 years or so and used in the building industry for housing frames? Wood is basically carbon that has been sucked out of the atmosphere and using the wood in construction will lock it up for a very long time.

I read about a German/American chemist who is developing a CO2 scrubber that will collect CO2 from the atmosphere and then use it to feed bacteria that give hydro carbons as a waste product. Thus the CO2 scrubber is a little petrol factory. This apparently isn't some flakey stuff but is legit and is being backed by Exxon.

If the Aussie federal government backed this sort of technology instead of big energy companies then we would have a chance of making use of it instead of it being locked away.


Nah mate. They could never do anything like that. Too easy, too simple, too sensible, it would end the debate and there is no gut gouging tax mechanism in it.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. The whole "Global Warming/Climate Change/Carbon Emissions" thing is being used by the powers that be worldwide as an excuse to get more taxes and exert more control over the masses.

We need to go nuclear with the latest technology like ceramic coated fuel beads, higher extraxtions of nuclear energy resulting in spent fuel being rendered virtually harmless and smaller unitised power generation modules thereby limiting and isolating damage caused by system failures.

Nuclear can only be a temporary solution though until cold fusion, geothermal and other technologies are perfected.

There is no lack of solutions for the problems of the world. What is lacking is "political will".

Gestalt
QLD, 14393 posts
7 Apr 2011 2:56PM
Thumbs Up

^^ this is already done, has been for a very long time now. the government doesn't farm, so it is done by private companies...... it's called the timber industry funnily enough.

you will find both hardwood and softwood farming. it used to be only softwood as pine trees are super fast growing and used in both construction and paper industries.

then the government legislated to stop old growth forest harvesting.....

overnight the immediate effect was an end to deforestation of old growth regions in australia and a new hardwood milling industry for our shores.

hardwood farming is more common in victoria and tasmania. softwoods QLD...

this policy has been in place for years. if it wasn't the howard government it was the one previous.

what we don't grow we import, imported hardwoods are usually not regulated like in australia. this is a major issue. global deforestation regulations would in fact protect our industry.

so much inacurate politically motivated crap in this thread. lacking facts, no wonder the carbon tax doesn't stand a chance.

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
7 Apr 2011 1:13PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...

^^ this is already done, has been for a very long time now. the government doesn't farm, so it is done by private companies...... it's called the timber industry funnily enough.

you will find both hardwood and softwood farming. it used to be only softwood as pine trees are super fast growing and used in both construction and paper industries.

then the government legislated to stop old growth forest harvesting.....

overnight the immediate effect was an end to deforestation of old growth regions in australia and a new hardwood milling industry for our shores.

hardwood farming is more common in victoria and tasmania. softwoods QLD...

this policy has been in place for years. if it wasn't the howard government it was the one previous.

what we don't grow we import, imported hardwoods are usually not regulated like in australia. this is a major issue. global deforestation regulations would in fact protect our industry.

so much inacurate politically motivated crap in this thread. lacking facts, no wonder the carbon tax doesn't stand a chance.




pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
7 Apr 2011 1:36PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...
[br
so much inacurate politically motivated crap in this thread. lacking facts, no wonder the carbon tax doesn't stand a chance.


You're right regarding the "politically motivated crap" that you mentioned.
Arguments involving government policy always end up that way because not everyone agrees with the government's solution to the problem.
Why?
Because the governments solution to most problems is usually a new tax, a new levy, a new surcharge, a new (anything so long as it's payed by YOU the taxpayer).

The problem with the carbon tax is that it will make very little difference to the amount of CO2 generated in Australia or anywhere else in the world and the small difference that it does make will be swamped by natural increase.
Therefore, as I said earlier, if the problem is CO2 then whatever that problem is, then that's the problem we will have to deal with., not 'how do we cut back carbon emissions 20% by 2020.'
You don't get a smoker to solve his health problems by cutting back 20% by 2020.
You don't get an alcoholic to solve his health problems by cutting back his drinking 20% by 2020.

The only way we can make a meaningful difference to the amount of carbon burnt is to stop burning the stuff.

I don't suppose anyone is following the links I put up in another thread regarding low energy nuclear reaction, (cold fusion), but it to anyone who has, it would have to be obvious that something along these lines will solve the whole problem without the need for any new tax.
If the technology is proven and reliable (and it isn't yet), it will naturally take over as a matter of course.
For anyone interested you can follow a blog on 'Journal of nuclear physics' regarding this. It's right up to date and it's worth a read.

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comments



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Carbon Tax May Work after 1000 years!!!" started by cisco