Carbon Tax passed in lower house

[musty]

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

Gloria Fans!

LOL that made me crack up! I only listen to him on my way to work because the knobs on FM breakfast radio are worse! At least he gets me fired up so when I walk on site im ready to crack heads!

Nice one Gazz

Musty

Edited October 12, 2011 by musty

[Onajewagain]

Not sure when the minority government argument came into it, but I guess that's the problem at the moment. Topics go to the dogs and the argument is left in the same place. Going nowhere.

Pretty simple really, the government have defied what the people want. The kids argument is a sop story so you believe it, and the "newest" science in the world is still out.

No conspiracies, no minority government argument, no greens agenda. If the scientists can't tell us what the temp will be tomorrow, why would you believe them when they tell you it's going to be hot in 100 years?

The real problem in the heat of it all is, we have had lyres after lyres after lyres of government, paid government officials, and corrupt agencies. I'm not a cynic, just don't believe anything they say.

"there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" j Gillard

"a carbon tax is an uneconomically way that will do nothing for the environment" (similar anyway) P Wong

You can only tolerate the dribble for so long.

Lies lies and more lies, than a tax. And that's good governance?

If a carbon tax/ets is so good, why can't they tell us by how much it will slow warming?

[Catchin Jack]

Gee I'm glad I started this topic, some healthy posts for and against.

Remember, keep replies within site rules please.

[fishmaniac]

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

Mate,

Make sure you get your facts right, apart from anything it discredits your argument. Methane has a greater impact on heat retention in the atmospehere - ie a greater contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide and methane have no little to no impact on the ozone layer. Things like chloroflorocarbons are what do the damage.

Edited October 12, 2011 by fishmaniac

[spaners]

This is what happens when you do not have a IQ test to see if you are smart enough to vote.

The emmissions Australia will save over the next 5 years India will put out in 4 days..

This will have no impact at all on global warming,water levels,air quality etc.

One fart from a volcano will pump out more carbon than we can ever hope to save.Ever.

This is a sad day for Australia.

As Darren Hintch used to say SHAME,SHAME,SHAME.

[JimT]

I found it amusing ( with due respect for what was intended) that this morning after CARBON TAX Law was passed as I travelled over the Harbour Bridge the Flags above were at half mast. Could be an omen?

[Brooker435]

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

cheers gary

Funny you should mention the point about thinking of our kids, one of my colleagues said the same thing, I hope this does benefit them after-all they are the future, and as long as we are paying taxes the current government and future governments will find new ways to get more money from us.

Regards,

Nathan

[Mr Squidy]

Not sure when the minority government argument came into it, but I guess that's the problem at the moment. Topics go to the dogs and the argument is left in the same place. Going nowhere.

Pretty simple really, the government have defied what the people want. The kids argument is a sop story so you believe it, and the "newest" science in the world is still out.

No conspiracies, no minority government argument, no greens agenda. If the scientists can't tell us what the temp will be tomorrow, why would you believe them when they tell you it's going to be hot in 100 years?

The real problem in the heat of it all is, we have had lyres after lyres after lyres of government, paid government officials, and corrupt agencies. I'm not a cynic, just don't believe anything they say.

"there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" j Gillard

"a carbon tax is an uneconomically way that will do nothing for the environment" (similar anyway) P Wong

You can only tolerate the dribble for so long.

Lies lies and more lies, than a tax. And that's good governance?

If a carbon tax/ets is so good, why can't they tell us by how much it will slow warming?

You missed the quote from Tony originally in support of the tax. Yes they are all incompetent liars and we shouldn't pay much attention to what they say. BUT, when CSIRO and other politically unaligned research bodies tell you you're in the shit surely it’s time to listen?

Your point on weather predictions really is irrelevant. Firstly they are generally much more accurate than people give them credit for, secondly picking long term overall trends is much simpler than predicting specific events. When they have predicted La Nina's or El nino events everyone happily listens and usually they are spot on, when they tell us the world is in trouble because of what we are doing to it everyone is up in arms because they are suggesting spending money.

As for your last question, if i watch a car speeding towards a brick wall there is a point at which i'd be yelling "shit its not going to stop in time". At that point i cant say how fast it will hit, whether the driver will break in time to avoid being killed or how the car will stand up to the impact, i just know that its looking real scary and the driver sure as hell should hit the breaks. Unfortunately this is where the science is at right now, its hard to say exactly how bad it is and whether we can still stop in time, they just know its looking like its going to be messy. Again, picking a trend is easy, giving a specific answer is very tricky, especially when it all rests on what the rest of the world do as well.

Further irrelevant of peoples thoughts on climate change we are already seeing changes to the oceans accidty levels (as already mentioned by Fishmaniac above). Surely as fisherman on this basis alone its something that needs to be addressed?

Lastly Irrelevant of the intentions of the labour party in introducing this tax (i agree they are looking at it as another windfall in their budgeting) the effect will be 1, big business will look to reduce emissions to increase profits and 2. more money will be available to support the development and installation of less polluting technologies.

[Onajewagain]

This is why I dont believe this government. You don't employ a brick layer to install a stove, so why have we employed this bloke to advise government on climate change.

That is Tim Flannery with no qualifications in Climate Science, he has a doctorate in Palaeontology.

This is the Tim Flannery that said in 2005 that droughts could leave Sydneys Dams dry in just two years.

The Tim Flannery that said that most climate skeptics were men over 65.

The Professor Tim Flannery that said in 2008 “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.†(Adelaide’s Dams are almost full)

The Tim Flannery who said in 2007 that “Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 monthsâ€. No desal plant is being used anywhere, because all the three cities have too much water in their Dams.

The Tim Flannery who said in 2004 that “I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis†. Ten years into the 21st Century, Perth is still there.

The Tim Flannery who said in 2008 (three years ago) that “in five years there’ll be no Arctic ice cap“. Well the Arctic Icecap is still there, but Tim Flannery says there is only two years left.

Source - Australian Climate Change Denier

I'm sure he's very good at doing whatever it is he does, but really? If it is real (man made I'm not denying all climate change) I would be wanting the absolute best in Oz to be giving the advice, not an explorer, who, by following trends, has got it wrong over and over again. That trend gives a forecast of Tim being highly likely to be wrong again. Correct?

And before anyone jumps on saying your only looking at the bad rarara, that's 100% correct. But they have been monumental stuff ups on the advice given to which our government acts. You do that in your workplace, you'll lose your job. He does that we get a tax! Or a desal plant!

[Brooker435]

I hope our money is put towards less polluting technologies and not other crap that we don't need, only time will tell.

The other issue of concern is that even more of our manufacturing will move oversea's because the big businesses will have to seek cheaper way's to produce.

The knock-on effect will be higher unemployment!!! we cant win damn government has screwed us once again!!!!!!

Regards,

Nathan

You missed the quote from Tony originally in support of the tax. Yes they are all incompetent liars and we shouldn't pay much attention to what they say. BUT, when CSIRO and other politically unaligned research bodies tell you you're in the shit surely it's time to listen?

Your point on weather predictions really is irrelevant. Firstly they are generally much more accurate than people give them credit for, secondly picking long term overall trends is much simpler than predicting specific events. When they have predicted La Nina's or El nino events everyone happily listens and usually they are spot on, when they tell us the world is in trouble because of what we are doing to it everyone is up in arms because they are suggesting spending money.

As for your last question, if i watch a car speeding towards a brick wall there is a point at which i'd be yelling "shit its not going to stop in time". At that point i cant say how fast it will hit, whether the driver will break in time to avoid being killed or how the car will stand up to the impact, i just know that its looking real scary and the driver sure as hell should hit the breaks. Unfortunately this is where the science is at right now, its hard to say exactly how bad it is and whether we can still stop in time, they just know its looking like its going to be messy. Again, picking a trend is easy, giving a specific answer is very tricky, especially when it all rests on what the rest of the world do as well.

Further irrelevant of peoples thoughts on climate change we are already seeing changes to the oceans accidty levels (as already mentioned by Fishmaniac above). Surely as fisherman on this basis alone its something that needs to be addressed?

Lastly Irrelevant of the intentions of the labour party in introducing this tax (i agree they are looking at it as another windfall in their budgeting) the effect will be 1, big business will look to reduce emissions to increase profits and 2. more money will be available to support the development and installation of less polluting technologies.

[tunastrike]

what i think it is just another way a greedy goverment can get more money nothing to do with with carbon i saw a show a while ago about oil and america burns 11000 liters of fuel a second and use,s a third of the world,s oil where,s there carbon tax that red head is the worse thing that could have happend to this country.

[Onajewagain]

I hope our money is put towards less polluting technologies and not other crap that we don't need, only time will tell.

Well it won't be, we are not that silly. The break up of the wealth redistribution bugger all will be left for r&d. The government may give a small grant here and there but as usual, rorters will jump on the gravy train and leave bugger all for the real players.

Here is where the biggest floor in the tax is.

It punishes the company by taxing them for releasing co2. Basically giving the ok to pollute, as long as you pay. They will pollute, pay, and pass on the cost. Or, move offshore and manufacture over in china or somewhere they don't have to pay.

If a business incurs a cost it passes it on. They are not accountable as they have the option to pass it on. If we cop a big bill, we can't pass it on, we have to pay.

A better alternative is the carrot on the string. Rewards for green/clean business. If a company can see lowered tax, or profit increase, they are more likely to become compliant. Which will increase investment and development to green futures. This has been a proven method in transport with programs like NHVAS and fuel tax credits and a few others. A small investment in maintaining and complying with standards and targets, and the benefits are fantastic. Unfortunately the fuel tax credits have been shot to crap and lowered to a point where it's just not worth the hassle, something the green agenda really should have persisted with.

[Berleyguts]

Here is where the biggest floor in the tax is.

It punishes the company by taxing them for releasing co2. Basically giving the ok to pollute, as long as you pay. They will pollute, pay, and pass on the cost. Or, move offshore and manufacture over in china or somewhere they don't have to pay.

If a business incurs a cost it passes it on. They are not accountable as they have the option to pass it on. If we cop a big bill, we can't pass it on, we have to pay.

A better alternative is the carrot on the string. Rewards for green/clean business. If a company can see lowered tax, or profit increase, they are more likely to become compliant. Which will increase investment and development to green futures. This has been a proven method in transport with programs like NHVAS and fuel tax credits and a few others. A small investment in maintaining and complying with standards and targets, and the benefits are fantastic. Unfortunately the fuel tax credits have been shot to crap and lowered to a point where it's just not worth the hassle, something the green agenda really should have persisted with.

Hear, hear!

Baz

[piratesgold]

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.

er, compulsory in the DA nnd build codes,and inspected by the building inspector, not retro fit byrip off cowboys under a shonky 'we are so good' government scheme

[piratesgold]

so what can we do that would definatly help the environment.

reduce packaging. I don't need a bag in a box in a bag in a box. i am happy to eat chips out of newspaper, the ink is different to the old stuff,

better recycling by re using the bottles like we used to (10 c deposit)

europe was considering a euro bottle and euro jar, all returnable, re-usable and a standard range of sizes to suit most requirements, but the glass manufacturers played up

fine the *ss of people for dumping litter

stop wasting our resorces being shiped away and made into dollars for fat cats

stop importing stuff that we already have over here (vegies meat etc) transport costs and fuel

stop exporting stuff that we need over here (ditto)

only build houses with an energy efficiency (we used to have large verandas for a reason, to keep the house cool)

stiffer rules about re landscaping and planting the post mining land to it's former glory, or to farmland. make them start now, not when the mine is spent in 30 years time

put propane/butane back as a refrigerant, it is sooo much more efficient, and there is only a few ounces in a fridge,there is more in an aerosol can it's not going to blow houses up

keep our gas for us to use in cars, rather than exporting it and importing fuel oil, whilst we come up with a better power system

all electric vehicles to be charged by solar means, not grid power, otherwise they are not 'green'

ease the ruling on electric powered bikes so we can use more power and get a better travel range and economic speed, and provide safe parking for them. I WOULD use one to go to work, but it is to far, and to hilly for it.(and I have medical reason for not using an ordinary bike) so i drive, there is no othere way for me to get there

ban bottled water

rainwater tanks n stuff i posted earlier 20Kl miminum, not the compulory 2 Kl 'buckets'

de-centralize our cities, so we don't have a mass transit problem into CBD then back out, plan new towns (like Milton Keynes in the uk ,but better) it was planned as a complete city, with business, industrial, council depot, shopping ,leisure and suburban areas all planned and transport linked

encourage people to live nearer to work (raduis tax break)

variations for regional climates

some of these are not workable

some are easy, some are cheap to impliment

some things like solar panels would come down in price with volume, instead of staying artificially high due to govt incentives so would balance out

big business would not be happy , but tough

what else can you think of to 'clean up our environment' suggestions please, whilst i pack my rods for a fishing trip on the weekend

Edited October 13, 2011 by piratesgold

[Brooker435]

sounds good but the best part of all of that was " whilst i pack my rods for a fishing trip on the weekend" now were talking

some great ideas there I must say,

Regards,

Nathan

[piratesgold]

sounds good but the best part of all of that was " whilst i pack my rods for a fishing trip on the weekend" now were talking

some great ideas there I must say,

Regards,

Nathan

all you need to do is encourage people and make it easy and fun to be environmental, rather than dictate and introduce a tax that we know will be missused, misspent, and proffited on by people who have nothing to do with helping the environment, the tax will eventually be managed by market traders, who will try and milk every last cent to 3 decimal places out of it, how good is that!

most of it is common sense Unfortunatly the environment is not capitalist friendly, and the capitalist wins most of the times

when i were a lad,(in the UK) local milk was bottled locally, in glass bottles. these were delivered to your door on electric milk floats (small trucks), and your empty bottles were picked up, washed, checked, and refilled for the next day. when i were a lad, soft drinks were all in deposit paid glass bottles, and in the summer,every evening, we would scour the beach from end to end for empties and take them to the icecream shop and 'cash them in, for 6 header ice creams. the shop keeper also insisted we bring rubbish off the beach when we collected the bottles, or he would dock us one bottle, and an extra half scoop for the most rubbish. this was in the 60's and 70's. milk is still delivered in some places this way

now it is trucked around the country after going through miles of process pipes, having stuff done to it, then bunged in plastic throw away bottles, or cartons, inside boxes, shrink wrapped on pallets. dosen't even taste like milk anymore

I rememeber a prime time childerens programme getting all the schoolkids to post the aluminium bottle tops and foil off choclate bars to them through the schools then they would sell as scrap and raise enough to buy and fully train a guide dog for the blind i digress

beer was delivered in crates, and the empties were collected by the brewery, washed, inspected and re-used, they also had a deposit you could collect. (we used to pinch them from behind the pub, and take then to the bottle shop for a refund, untill we got caught and thumped by the local copper and dobbed in to our parents)

if the bottles today had a cash incentive like in SA, the kids and charities would collect them, even from the bush, beaches, riversides, picknic sites, carparks and gutters

Edited October 14, 2011 by piratesgold

[tide'n'knots]

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.

when they realise they are wrong - I bet the carbon tax will still exsist!!!

If they ever figure out how set a methane tax on peole who fart my mate dave is in big trouble!

pete.

[Berleyguts]

...

If they ever figure out how set a methane tax on peole who fart my mate dave is in big trouble!

pete.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[helliconia]

Not that I want to defend the government but on the topic of mandates, think on this.

The last election saw neither party able to form a government. This forced the parties to negotiate with the Greens and Independents to create a stable (well in theory) government.

These are the Greens and Independents that enough people voted for to give them the balance of power. Unfortunately, they come from specific areas or ideologies and now we are reaping the result.

Labour did not have a mandate for a carbon tax, but a handful of disillusioned voters in specific seats handed that mandate to the Greens and Independents to force on the rest of us. Whether the fix for this is more independents or less I'm not sure. More would create unstable government, at least with the system we have that favours a 2 party structure. Less would allow us to go back to the way it was but I'm doubtful that is any better.

Both parties are treating the last election as an aberration. It will be interesting to see what happens next election, whether the swing away from Labour goes to the Libs or sees more independents or minor parties voted in.

On the Carbon Tax itself I'm a bit divided.

On one hand, you don't reduce pollution without fixing a cost to it. Its an unfortunate fact of capitalism that if there isn't a cost or profit involved business will not act. Theoretically, market pressures from consumers should favour those products that attract the least tax (ie are closest or the furthest below carbon neutral) and hence are cheaper. Government funded research falls in the same category, unless there is a cost in polluting business has no driver to implement new knowledge. Products or companies who are carbon negative, ie produce products or services that reduce emissions, will attract profit from selling carbon credits and be able to subsidise their products further to make them cheaper.

On the other hand, the money isn't being directed properly. I agree that the 50% give or take that is being returned to consumers in the form of tax breaks to offset the cost is a good investment, the rest of the money is being put into short term carbon offset schemes which can only keep up with a certain amount of demand. If we're going to do this right we need a shift in the technologies that are causing the pollution. New forms of power generation, transport, and industrial practices need to be invented and implemented. It requires a shift in individual and group thinking that taxes do not accomplish. In a few years the tax will be another fact of life and no-one will care enough to make changes. Long term change is the answer, not short term programs to "neutralise" what we continue to plough along with.

As for the "Why us first" argument. If not us, who? If not now, when? The fact is, the developed world needs to lead the rest in these issues because we can afford to. As noted, we enjoy the 2nd highest standard of living. Can we in good conscience expect countries of starving people to do it first? Our economy is one of only a few in the world that can currently absorb this kind of tax, and the scare mongering that says it will send us broke is ridiculous. The total collected carbon tax, based on some loose calculations I just did, represents less than 1.3% of our gross domestic product. I based that on 26.9 tonnes of carbon produced per capita, at $23 a tonne, and a population of 21 million.

Our current inflation rate of 3.6% will cost us much more and I don't see anyone screaming murder about the reduction in our standard of living from that.

Edited October 14, 2011 by EmptyHooks

[Catchin Jack]

Can we in good conscience expect countries of starving people to do it first?

And what about the starving/homeless people we already have here? If only they smothered our tv channels with those guilt trip commercials of our own people and looked after our own backyard first.

All this money they will make off the carbon tax, will it be given in bloody foreign aid?

I'll shut up now before i get myself in the poop.

[Onajewagain]

And what about the starving/homeless people we already have here? If only they smothered our tv channels with those guilt trip commercials of our own people and looked after our own backyard first.

All this money they will make off the carbon tax, will it be given in bloody foreign aid?

I'll shut up now before i get myself in the poop.

Can't disagree Fezza, however way off topic.

The point has been made, and it's hard to disagree with, profit will be the driver in investments into green concepts.

My argument with a tax still is, the business is punished before it can invest and develop. It's a two pronged sword. Firstly they will have to pay the tax over the next few years, at the same time as trying to invest/develop greener ways. So the business is hit twice for nil result.

Put it the other way around, if a business invests say 200k in r&d on green techs, they get a tax break of a certain percentage for that period. The loss to them would be minimized and the investment and development is made.

I that scenario, the company is not put out twice, and will make a minimal loss to the point it wont need to take drastic action to protect it's profits. You know the company would invest, knowing it's margins are safe, and the possibility of moving to off shore manufacturing wouldn't come into it. They aren't being taxed.

Let's face it, the government isn't going to invest any of this money into green futures, it will simply be a case of wealth distribution and foreign aid.

[brickman]

manufacturing companys move off shore to take advantage off cheap labour a tradsman in china gets 100.00usd a month china is outsorsing to india because they get 25.00usd a month

[helliconia]

Can't disagree Fezza, however way off topic.

The point has been made, and it's hard to disagree with, profit will be the driver in investments into green concepts.

My argument with a tax still is, the business is punished before it can invest and develop. It's a two pronged sword. Firstly they will have to pay the tax over the next few years, at the same time as trying to invest/develop greener ways. So the business is hit twice for nil result.

Put it the other way around, if a business invests say 200k in r&d on green techs, they get a tax break of a certain percentage for that period. The loss to them would be minimized and the investment and development is made.

I that scenario, the company is not put out twice, and will make a minimal loss to the point it wont need to take drastic action to protect it's profits. You know the company would invest, knowing it's margins are safe, and the possibility of moving to off shore manufacturing wouldn't come into it. They aren't being taxed.

Let's face it, the government isn't going to invest any of this money into green futures, it will simply be a case of wealth distribution and foreign aid.

Actually the tax breaks for R&D in Australia have been quite generous. It's been a while since I looked in to it, but at one stage it was 125%, i.e. for every $100 you invested in R&D you got a $125 income reduction. This may have dropped or been changed since then, I don't know.

Also, I think for the first 2 years, the government is subsidising the Carbon Tax through personal income tax reductions, grants to pollutors and handouts in the budget. The net effect is the pollutors get to collect the tax from consumers, the government reimburses most of us (give or take), and also pays the pollutors, so the companies get to pocket the tax and use it to reduce emissions (in theory). If they don't their idiots because when the trading scheme comes in to play and government subsidies run out, their overheads will blow out and they'll become uncompetitive.

From an economic theory perspective it should work. In reality however I think we'll see companies buying carbon offsets from dodgy carbon fixing plantation companies hastily setup with existing stocks around the world, and the environment won't be any better off then when we started. For example, I have a plantation in Brazil, on which I grow pine trees. My business has a 25 year cycle, I plant a tree and 25 years later I harvest it. My only income is from the wood I produce. Now I get this idea. My trees are a carbon fixing asset. They absorb carbon dioxide and hold it in the leaves, trunk, and roots and release oxygen. So now when I plant a tree, not only do I make income from the wood, but I can calculate the carbon it fixes and sell that too. No new trees are planted, in fact I'll probably bulldoze another 1000 hectares of rainforest because the money is so good, but some company in Australia can buy my carbon fixing services to avoid the tax. When my trees are harvested I'll miss out on the carbon offset income while I plant more, but in the process of harvesting I'll also release a good portion of the carbon I was paid to store.

We loose an efficient carbon fixing asset (the rainforest), pay some guy to store our carbon (which he'll happily do while its convenient because he was doing it for free before), and then we'll release it back into the environment at a later date so we can have timber for our particle board shelves in the pantry.

Now there's a cheery picture

Edited October 20, 2011 by EmptyHooks

[Catchin Jack]

Nice one EmptyHooks, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and nothing changes, love it.

All driven by GREED imho.