Julia's New Carbon Price

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by eco4560, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what is Julia going to do with all this money? Just put it into the general tax pool? Or is it directed into projects designed to aid our graceful energy descent?
     
  2. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sunburn, It appears youre not a typical Aussie whinger, who has to grow a few vegie's to make do, put of repairing the old banger which needs a new muffler, cause the cops have decided youre lower class and put you of the road becuase you cant pay their speeding fines (read TAX) This all because as a pensioner, on the lower level of being able to afford fuel, due to increased prices, you pay top dollar for a banana, orange pumpkin or potatoes as you cant afford to travel to buy cheaper.. The costs are getting out of hand. All because China is suddenly threatening the world economy, with America become a lesser power. This is what caused the econy to collapse world wide. People who were rorting the financial system suddenly found themselves without a paddle when they had to pay their bills. The excuse is pollution and while I convinced this is in need of fixing, the carbon tax is built on a fallacy of global warming (nee Climate change) We mustnt let theChinese know its because of them. Theyre lauging theyre collective asses off. Wikieleaks is an eye opener. Who says saving face isnt practiced by Americans? Are they Americans Or Americants?
    Its not only the Chinese who want to save face!
     
  3. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've just had a crack at reading the govt's paper. Brief is actually a very good description. "We think this is a good idea but we'll get back to you on the details" is how I would summarise it. Two things leapt off the page that made me wonder.... It refers to the introduction of a carbon price as being budget neutral. So if this is the "mother of all taxes" as MRabbit says - where is all that money going to be spent? Are they just going to pour it back into subsidies of petrol and coal users to help them adjust to the carbon price? That sound like you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    The second thing that caught my eye was the reference to "we must maintain energy security". What on earth do they mean? That we are going to stop selling coal and oil overseas and keep it stockpiled here? Or that we'll be helping the USA when they invade Iran to access their gas supplies?
     
  4. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The "TAX"pool has allready been rorted in Europe. No doubt it will be easier here. Our solution, of low pollution, is simply to lower the quality of life, and is no answer to world problems..
     
  5. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nasty comment!

     
  6. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope you have oiled the hinges on the 'gate' in Mandala Town, Eco...

    Welcome to the PRI Forum, John.

    Concerning the Groucho Marx quote: Care to share with us the titles of the 'global warming and climate change books' you have read?

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  8. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To be honest. general concensus is to use the internet, as you are doing, and gain opinion there isnt it?
    Perhaps read misleading headlines and believe them? Even the Al Gore film has been seen as needing some enlightenment.
    It was allowed to be shown in England only after certain things were explained.
    To read any book about Global warming, sorry , thats climate change now isnt it? would take away my unbiased views.
    Al Gore’s environmental documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, contains nine crucial scientific errors and is a "political film" rather than an impartial analysis of climate change, a High Court judge has ruled.
    However, Judge Michael Burton decided not to ban viewing of the film from British schools, despite inaccuracies which he said had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration". Instead, the film can only be shown with guidance notes, to prevent political indoctrination.
    Perhaps you should be guided how "they" use junk science to further their levels of taxation. Its not good enough to be seen to do something, when its only another impost in a nation where the big deal isnt pollution but the export of pollution...
    See here to get you started https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647 Im afraid you wont watch it though, as it imposes some shocking ideas that scientist are being paid and used by politicians...
     
  9. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    You say that like its a bad thing.
     
  10. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When it comes to having a job, then yes.
    If you rely on a pension, its going to create poverty like you wouldn't believe.
    Of course if youre like Julia (Who knows what her assets are btw) and Turnbull, you are going to be in clover to a certain extent.
    Having created the conditions to further create more wealth...By selling before the CT comes in....
     
  11. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jobs, pensions, wealth.... Are all part of the problem. An abundance of everything you need without having to go to work is something I'd rather aspire to than cashing in before cap and trade. Big picture stuff.
     
  12. Kardella

    Kardella Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Picking up Len's comments concerning the risk to the poor in the proposed carbon tax, I believe that this will only be the case if the Government shows the same largesse to the coal lobby that it did for the CPRS. If it has the 'ticker' there are also some wonderful opportunities to end subsidies to the wealthy by abandoning some of the contradictory concessional taxation arrangements that are currently in place. An egregious example is the FBT for company cars - the further you drive (and the more fossil fuels you consume) the greater the financial benefit to you! This nonsensical tax is subsidised by those who don't get the benefit. More details on complementary and contradictory policies can be found at:
    https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/19&pubid=831&act=display
     
  13. John Greenwort

    John Greenwort New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some more worrying trends...

    It appears Len and others are right to worry about our government.

    They cant serve two masters as it appears theyre doing!
    The CSIRO now has an Ex banker as head of an organisation who knows nothing about science.
    When companies start backing carbon taxes we can start worrying that it’s against the interest of most people.
    Gas and power people are not about making people happy. Only about making profits. Worry about it when they try to install
    The coal industry received substantial support of around $1.7 billion in 2005-06 from taxpayers…. The next largest subsidy is associated with fuel subsidies at coal-fired power stations. There is evidence that coal-fired power stations pay much less for their fuel than the international market price. This indicates the existence of a subsidy to coal-fired power stations, amounting to between $450 million and $1.1 billion in 2005-06, depending on the assumptions used to calculate the subsidy. The subsidies received by several electricity generation companies with a large proportion of coal-fired generation in their portfolio appear to rival or exceed the profits made by those companies in 2005-06. In other words, government subsidies appear to be directly creating profits for coal-fired generators.=( So who's going to pay a carbom tax? You are.. Not the power stations...
     
  14. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So is everyone watching the sunday morning show who's name escapes me right now. The one on the ABC at 9am. They are sure to be discussing the carbon tax and its merits or demerits.
     
  15. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    g'day kardella,

    the link doesn't want to work.

    len
     
  16. Kardella

    Kardella Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My apologies Len.

    An alternative to using this link is to google the Australia Institute and click on Publications. I think it is the second publication listed and is titled 'Complementary or Contradictory? An analysis of the design of climate policies in Australia'.

    All the best.
     
  17. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    re Len's first post and links

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

    I note that "the centre believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind."

    So what i took from this morning's insiders show is

    1. low income groups will be compensated for rising prices so they should not be negatively impacted by the brunt of it.
    2. The detail of the whole plan is under negotiation
    3. The carbon tax is an initial step towards a carbon trading scheme

    Unfortunately, none of the discussion was about how these measures will affect carbon emissions and the environment. I guess the environmental benefits of it are considered a given now and that the main issue or the immediate issue is winning over the public and sorting out the arguements amongst politicians and rogue broadcasters who will say anything that suits their agenda.

    I still haven't read the detail yet (still getting there) but i expect that the scheme will use the money the government makes to fund research and development of alternative energy schemes and that it will be hoped that the resulting higher consumer prices will force people and emissions producers to consume less energy and to produce less emissions through greater efficiencies. Is that such a bad thing?
     
  18. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are pensioners and we TOTALLY AGREE with having a carbon tax

    To save the planet people have to be discourged from using so much power, fuel etc ....... all attempts to educate them have failed :( denial is their new way to rationalise their continued excesses
     
  19. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    I am still not sure what you are referring to. Did you mean the (Source Watch) link I provided you with as a direct response to the two links you inserted into your OP? If so, I wonder if you have had a chance to read it?

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  20. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we don't use exces anything, so maybe the poster is describing self?? comes under the heading 'judging others by one's own merits'.

    the affluent yuppy set are the excess users of resources, from what i have seen, not those at our level.

    seems like it is all starting at the wrong end.

    here's some excesses:

    all sorts of motor sports, motorcycles, powerboat racing drift racing where they not only consume oodles of fuel to spin tyres but the smoke pollution from those tyres as well, small aircraft racing, right down to go carts, drag racing tyre smoke as well, if carbon was the real issue then why aren't these so called learned folk calling for the abolution of all unneccessary use of fuels and tyres first then the other furphy peak oil would be less of an issue. oh i didn't mention V8 racing and formula racing they ship their vehicles and support crews and workshops around the globe, generally by plain so another fuel folly should be cut and stop direct pollution of the air by jets, how many aircraft fly near fully loaded not all, i flew from sydney to brisbane in a 767 with 20 people on board including the crew.

    and compensation packages soon get swallowed up, look at what was given to payee tax payers when the GST came in all swallowed up now, the gov' makes tax on tax on fuel.

    anyhow none of the questions i asked have been answered this again the same as last time there was a post like this, for the supporters of this thing surely you msut have some answers?? personal attacks on people won't win converts.

    len
     

Share This Page

-->