Jump to content

Carbon Tax passed in lower house


Catchin Jack

Recommended Posts

Well it seems it's coming unless something or someone can stop it, a comment from a person this morning was...

Well that should turn the boats back...no one will be able to afford to live in Australia under this draconian tax. The highest tax per head on a dubious science in the world. Oh yes, there is a hand out for the low paid but the costs will far exceed the pieces of silver yet to be paid to pensioners. The PM had no mandate to introduce this tax and should have taken it to the people.

I tend to agree with those comments, i'll leave this topic open to have your say but please keep it inside site rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My 2 cents....

This tax has faced a lot of opposition and I personally think it is pretty patheritc the current government has the face to impose it, particularly after going to an election promising there would be no tax.

Although many people question the science behind global warming, it is clearly evident that there is a relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Whether or not incresing carbon results in increasing temperatures or vice versa is difficult to prove. Nonetheless, increasing carbon concentrations will lead to more acidic oceans and should (in theory) increase atmospheric temperatures due to the heat retaining properties of these particles. These more basic facts should not be questioned and if so, go and do some work on your basic science principles.

The problem with this tax is that it not only has the objection of the public, it is flawed in its very application.

1) Australia contributes less than 2% of glabal emmissions so reducing our emmissions has a miniscule effect on the global outcome without international co-operation

2) Other countries have not agreed to take up a carbon tax. And sorry to say, other world leaders are not exactly inspired by Julia Gilliard's leadership :wacko:

3) We all use the environment and we should all pay an equal amount of tax if we collectively need to rectify the issue. None of this compensation rubbish as this has effectively made the carbon tax another social welfare tax. The fact that lower income families need compensation should be enough of a hint that the country cannot afford it!!!

Here is the big one...

4)Imposing a tax will do nothing in the long term. Those who say 'we need to take action' need to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror. Let us say the entire globe agreed to impose a tax to reduce carbon emissions by say, 10%. In that case, instead of oceans rising and temperatures increasing by a given amount over 100 years, it will simply take 110 years. You tell me where the logic in that is? If people were serious about climate change we would need to switch to other forms of energy NOW. Not tommorrow, not when the government has collected lots of funds to pay of their debt and help out auusie strugglers and put a little bit aside each year for some research.

I have nothing against low income earners, pensioners or the like. I am merely attacking the case brought forward by the government and that is, we need this tax to take action on climate change. Something this tax will fail to accomplish.

Edited by fishmaniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats next - a FAT tax like the one recently put in place in hungry (lol i know. a country called "Hungry" having a Fat tax )

http://abcnews.go.com/International/battling-couch-potatoes-hungary-introduces-fat-tax/story?id=14429418

The public has such short memories and the pollies just take advantage !

remember the "flood levy" ?

The line was we want to be back in surplus by 2013 (election promise we dont want to re-neg on) so everyone will need to pitch in for this tax...err i mean levy!

6 months later wayne swan spits out that its not important to be back in surplus by 2013 because he knows there is no way Aus was ever going to get there - yet the flood "levy" is still in place...

fkn muppets running this show in Canberra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll add my thoughts to the mix. I agree with alot of what fishmaniac has said but my query would be, sure we only emit about 2% of the worlds emissions but we make up only about 0.3% of the world’s population, this puts us at the top of the worst polluters list in terms of per capita emissions. Secondly we have the second highest standard of living in the world, so on the whole we aren’t really doing that badly. So my question is if not us, then who? How can we expect any other Country to take measures to reduce their impacts if we take that logic?

As for point 4, you are spot on, BUT, the fact is no government would last two minutes making the necessary changes in anything other than a gradual manner. So I guess the question is, do we do nothing and accept that we are going to just keep buggering up the planet but will keep cheap electricity for a few more years or do we at least make a start and trying to turn things around.

She’s certainly an interesting argument. Must say I for one can’t understand the level of vitriol around at what is effectively a tax on pollution, I really cant think of a better thing to tax.

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wood burning fires in homes creates more carbon than electric heating does for a power station yet tree huggers expect us to go back in time and live like primitives.

There was also a "levy" put on fuel during the Vietnam war, I have been led to believe this "levy" was never removed, correct me if i'm wrong.

They were also talking about putting GST up to 20% haha.

We employ and voted for the parties, they work for us but never listen to or do as we ask, communism here we come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll add my thoughts to the mix. I agree with alot of what fishmaniac has said but my query would be, sure we only emit about 2% of the worlds emissions but we make up only about 0.3% of the worlds population, this puts us at the top of the worst polluters list in terms of per capita emissions. Secondly we have the second highest standard of living in the world, so on the whole we arent really doing that badly. So my question is if not us, then who? How can we expect any other Country to take measures to reduce their impacts if we take that logic?

As for point 4, you are spot on, BUT, the fact is no government would last two minutes making the necessary changes in anything other than a gradual manner. So I guess the question is, do we do nothing and accept that we are going to just keep buggering up the planet but will keep cheap electricity for a few more years or do we at least make a start and trying to turn things around.

Shes certainly an interesting argument. Must say I for one cant understand the level of vitriol around at what is effectively a tax on pollution, I really cant think of a better thing to tax.

Rich

I agree 100% on reducing pollution and that we should take action but this tax is not the solution. As you said, no government would last taking such radical measures but that only reflects on the public (mind you, with this tax larbour won't last 5 mins at the next election either!!!!). We all sit here up in arms and claim to care about the environment but no one is willing to take a hit and act in the appropriate manner.

If you said to me, "there will be a carbon tax, all proceeds of this tax are going to build solar/wind/hydro power. We have already decided the locaility of these renewable energy sources and based on our figures, all power will be renewable by 20XX" then i would say yes, let's do it. Not this rubbish they have come up with, compensate left right and centre and no future plan other than to irritate big industry.

A bit off topic, but for example, nuclear energy has zero carbon emmissions. There is a great negative stigma in Australia with respect to this type of energy yet in the short term it is the most safe and cost effective method to not only reduce, but eliminate carbon emmissions from energy production. I have done extensive research and written a paper on nuclear fuel as an alternative power source for Australia, and let me tell you it is very safe for us. We have no earthquakes and Australian scientists have developed a geosynthetic rock which is perfect for storing nuclear waste so it does not harm our environment or community. But all people look at is chernobyl (which occured because people violated operating instructions) and Japan (which got hit by a massive quake).

With respect to standards of living, yes we do have a higher standard of living than other countries and obviously we will emit more carbon per capita. We are fortunate to have a good country with high standards of living and as such we would all like it to stay that way. Furthermore, if we are in a good position to act on climate change, there is all the more reason to take the neccessary steps to fix the problem now.

The real problem, people are selfish and are always looking for the cheap and easy option to fix something. Either that or just push the issue onto the next generation which is who will pay the environmental price for failing to do anything now to actually fix the problem.

Edited by fishmaniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dought this has very little to do with protecting the environment it's simply a name given to a new tax to help balance the budget.

They could have increased GST , personal or company tax & achieve the same result but chose to create a new tax & call it a Carbon Tax.

By doing this , they get the money & keep the Green's happy , two birds with one stone , so to speak.

Forget the name & all the surrounding hype , look at the $$$$ , that's what it's all about.

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sad day in human existence, they day we believe money will change nature.

It's simple, we are not gods, we are not here for good nor have we been here forever. The day you believe that we can change evolution, you need to have a long hard look at the past.

Ice ages stone ages species coming and going. The world isn't going to die, humans are (eventually) it's evolution and we are not exempt. No tax will stop it, no wind mill or clean energy. However like has happened over the ages, we will evolve with it, or perish. Keep in my it's only humans who are concerned about these things. Why? We are the only ones with intelligence enough to trick/brainwash each other

A carbon tax or emission trading scheme eventually probably would be required however. Not to save the world as they led you to believe, but to create industry after fossil fuels.

I'm against it, but long term (100 years from now) it may have a place. Lots of issues along the way but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents worth...

I wrote these lyrics to the tune of Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag, which was a Vietnam protest song in the Woodstock era, by Country Joe McDonald. If you don't know it, look it up on YouTube! :)

The Carbon Tax Rag

Lyrics by "Berleyguts"

Music by Country Joe McDonald

(Sung to the tune of "Feel Like I'm Fixin to Die Rag" by Country Joe & the Fish)

Come on all you women and men

Your country needs your help again

The pollies say we're in a fix

And everyone needs to do their bit, so

Tighten your belts, disregard the facts, there's

Gonna be a carbon tax!

Chorus:

And it's one, two, three, what are we working for?

Don't ask me they've lost the plot, they just wanna tax the lot

And it's five, six, seven, they're gonna regulate

Don't sit back, don't you relax, we've gotta fight this carbon tax!

Come on Julia, don't act dumb

About the global warming conundrum

You made a scene, paired with the Greens

I guess you just weren't as you seemed

You say you had to compromise

But it's still just a pack of lies!

Chorus

Come on people, everyone

Global warming's gotta be undone

Forget your cars, get on your bikes

We're heading for a big tax hike

But we're gonna lose the shirts off our backs

If we settle for a carbon tax!

Chorus

Come on leaders, don't be dense

A carbon tax just makes no sense

The way to get emissions reduced

Is to get incentives introduced

Open your eyes, don't penalise

You might win a Nobel prize!

Chorus

Cheers,

Baz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is it that lately, everywhere we turn we seem to be taxed. If its not GST, then its stamp duty, or income tax or flood levy or land tax or carbon tax. It seems that everytime you try to get ahead in life the government makes sure it taxes you hard and make you pay for your hard work. Im not against the idea of carbon reduction as such, i am just against the idea of having to pay another tax again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh don't get me started.....too late.....The climate has been changing for the last 12 or 15 thousand years, since the last ice age started to melt, notice the word 'last', there have been several ice ages,freeze up, then melt, then freeze up then melt, and in australia too. the orebody at broken hill had the top third pushed south by one ice age glacia, the middle third pushed north by another, and we dug up what was left.

is the sea rising, or the land sinking? sea rising or plate tectonics sinking the land. we have had a lot of quakes recently, the coast in Japan sank permanantly nearly 2 metres in places during the earthquake, which lowered the sea defences and rendered them useless :1yikes: . better update the Japan charts ay. billions of cubic meters of silt are washed off the land into the sea anually, that'll raise it a bit

oh no not a silt tax next, and a tectonic tax to stop the plates moving, (just need a big wedge and some nails :biggrin2: )

hey Julia, can you hold the tide out for a few days, I want to dig some bait

too much hot air from Canberra :ranting2:

if you pay a plumber to fit a blue bathroom and he fits a red one he won't get paid. If you pay a scientist or institution to prove theres a man made climate change and we can stop it, and he proves there isn't......skinto.

bringing some nice fish south though, soon there will be Barramundi in Botany :thumbup:

I dont Believe that this is for the Environment, Just another revenue raiser to try and recover some of the money thats been blown by the Labour Government!!!!

Just My 5 cents worth of course!!!

Regards,

Nathan

lets see, 5 cents worth at 400% tax = $20.05 :1badmood:

Wood burning fires in homes creates more carbon than electric heating does for a power station yet tree huggers expect us to go back in time and live like primitives.

There was also a "levy" put on fuel during the Vietnam war, I have been led to believe this "levy" was never removed, correct me if i'm wrong.

They were also talking about putting GST up to 20% haha.

We employ and voted for the parties, they work for us but never listen to or do as we ask, communism here we come!

I burn wood in my fire, i get it off the ground, where if it were left to rot a proportion would turn to methane, but it would decompose anyway, i decompose it faster and extract most of the heat efficiently. electricity is created inefficiently, (and turned back into heat inefficiently) by burning coal which would not decompose naturally, but would stay where it is, as would gas. gas is better than coal which is why we are exporting all our gas to china, we will have none for ourselves in the future to make 'cleaner' energy from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of balance I believe this is an excellent policy that has unfortunately been hijacked by misinformation spread by the same old people (Daily Telegraph, talkback radio, certain newspaper columnists etc etc). Are you surprised that the profitable mining companies are up in arms and have plenty of cash to throw at their propaganda? Don’t believe everything the Liberal mouthpieces are telling you.

If this tax makes it more economically viable for companies to invest in and research green technologies that we are all going to need at some point in the future then I am all for it. This is an opportunity for Australia to be at the forefront of these technologies, which is why it’s a brilliant and courageous move to implement it. Its not just about Australia reducing its carbon emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most hardwood trees have lifespans measured in the hundreds of years. Some live thousands of years. And then, when they die (usually due to pestilence or disease or periods of extreme climate change) they decay very very slowly. So, the amount of carbon a tree releases needs to be measured against the number of years of its life and decay. Per year, the tree emits very little carbon on that basis. When you burn the tree, on the other hand, you release all the carbon at once. And then what do you do?

You stuff another tree in the stove. And burn it. And release more carbon.

You release in a matter of days or months, carbon that the tree sequestered over many decades or centuries. You can't plant and grow trees at the pace you burn them.

That does not add up to "carbon-neutral" to me. Nor is it "clean" heat.

Man burns up the natural balance sheet haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most hardwood trees have lifespans measured in the hundreds of years. Some live thousands of years. And then, when they die (usually due to pestilence or disease or periods of extreme climate change) they decay very very slowly. So, the amount of carbon a tree releases needs to be measured against the number of years of its life and decay. Per year, the tree emits very little carbon on that basis. When you burn the tree, on the other hand, you release all the carbon at once. And then what do you do?

However methane has 21 times the impact on the ozone layer than carbon dioxide for the same number of molecules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However methane has 21 times the impact on the ozone layer than carbon dioxide for the same number of molecules.

Most methane comes from wetlands/swamps, then cattle, then tips/waste and even rice fields produce high methane.

Natural gas is made up mostly of methane.

Methane breaks down faster in the environment than carbon, so short term it has bigger affect but long term carbon does. Maybe this Earth is over populated and because of "science & medicine" and righteous people we must pollute more to sustain the over population, makes you wonder if famines, floods, natural disasters where so many people die is happening for a reason.

Global warming will not be fixed by a "tax" as such, but the rich will get richer and not change their ways and the poor will get poorer and be forced to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the tree would decay and convert, the coal and gas would not if we left it buried

If I could, i would go stand alone solar panel, solar hot water and also modify a southern cross mill for additional power. get all my vegies local, use reusable bottles for milk beer and soft drinks, eat chips out of newspaper, get my water from a tap (rainwater) not from the other side of the world in plastic botles. but i can't achieve this, only part. the point though is the tax will not even make a dint in the long term cyclic nature of the climate. This is my personal viewpoint, developed over my 50 something years of living in various parts of the world, not gleaned from shockjocks talkback or whatever(they reinforce what i already believe). I got my first solar cell in 1968. solar, geothermal, whatever, i am game. just not those ugly windmills, built under 3a rules, where you would not be alowwed to built a house because it wouldn't blend in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tax will not even make a dint in the long term cyclic nature of the climate.

But it will make a difference to anthropogenic climate change if the tax breaks provided to green energy stimulate the adoption of a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

If you dont think climate change is a result of human activity then thats a different discussion altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big business doesn't care about this carbon tax, they just up their prices to cover their costs, end result being the consumer at the corner shop paying so much more for EVERYTHING.

Big business will still make record profits and still be polluting away.

Another thing, they say that Nitrogen fertilisers and nitrous oxide is 300 times worse than both carbon and methane, where will the taxing end?

They will realise oneday that they were wrong or it is something else causing global warming and then they will attempt to tax that, it'll never end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without splitting hairs, this is not a tax on carbon particles the pollutant, rather carbon dioxide, the gas not listed as a pollutant.

Why don't they tax the particle? Because it was brought under control years ago, and they won't have any gain, monetary or environmental.

What I was going to ask is this. If I become 100% carbon dioxide neutral, meaning take out of the atmosphere the carbon dioxide I expel, i.e trees, grass, garden etc. can I claim all the carbon tax I pay back from the government?

Of course not!!! Because unlike any other tax, it is teared at so many levels, it's actually impossible to avoid paying!!!

I watched a good piece a while back on Australias first climate tax accountant, who by the way is set to make a bundle out of this, who explained some of what had been released. Basically he said the big end of business will be ok, the mid sizes will pay the most and the little guys will pass it on. So we the consumer will be the biggest losers.

He did say mid size business will need to either, wind back expansion and aim for smaller, carbon friendly operations, or become bigger before it comes in and absorb the losses over a few years. If we take a business size class out of the spectrum, or deplete it to a point where it is unproductive for the government to support, what happens? The bigger guys come in and we have more market domination and less competitiveness. Not sure that's a good result.

I'm not an economist, but really people, a tax to save the world??? Give me a break, next it will be a tax to explore mars for colonization. This is action movie stuff without any excitement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it will make a difference to anthropogenic climate change if the tax breaks provided to green energy stimulate the adoption of a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

If you dont think climate change is a result of human activity then thats a different discussion altogether.

but that suposition is exactly what the tax is based on. yep i hope the environment will benefit, but i doubt it, the 'suits' will benefit when it converts to trading. but the whole thing is here because Julia lied, barefaced, as did her coleagues

a better way forward is to put manditory codes on new buildings to make solar energy compulsory, grey water, rainwater collection high level insulation etc. a local builder offer new homes AND also energy efficient homes,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

insulation program = FAIL

solar rebate = GONE

Carbon Tax = ??

They'll get something right one day but that last one is gonna hurt us ALL real bad, second, third jobs and no days off for family or fishing anymore, you be to busy trying to keep your head above water financially. And what they say they will offset it with is disgraceful, may cover 10% of total rise in prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

insulation program = FAIL

solar rebate = GONE

Carbon Tax = ??

They'll get something right one day but that last one is gonna hurt us ALL real bad, second, third jobs and no days off for family or fishing anymore, you be to busy trying to keep your head above water financially. And what they say they will offset it with is disgraceful, may cover 10% of total rise in prices.

If you seriously think you are going to need to get a second or third job just because of the carbon tax then I respectfully suggest you have been listening to too much talkback radio and reading the Telegraph too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

winge winge winge to all the liberal supporters and gloria fans get over it you could'nt form govenment and thats why your in oposition you lost

now as for burning coal for power and steel making how 3rd world i'm in the manuf. industry and have worked in the mines and power stations and neather give a shit about pollution just profit take a plane or chopper flight over the hunter vally it looks like a luna land scape when the coal is dug up they move on or fold the company so the do'nt have to clean up the mess

i'm not a greeny and not a big fan off the gillard gov either but think off your kids kids not your back pocket

there i've proberly pissed most off you off well good i'm sick off hearing you all winge like little kids :tease::074:

cheers gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If im going to have to pay a carbon tax, im going to make sure that as much as i can im going to fart, burp, accelerate really hard in my car, have bonfires in my backyard every other winters night and bbq everything i eat outside from now on.

If I'm going to be forced to pay for something stupid then im going to get my money's worth!

Oh, and no more visits to the tip to assist in the daylight robbery that goes on over there, I will have a weekly burn off of all my crap just like the good old days.

end rant.

:074:

Musty :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...