Carbon Tax

[kylarama]

The only factual post in this thread.

Now back to the uninformed speculation please.

No, no. my roast comment was also factual. :-)

and my post...  I really did have 2 ton of red gum delivered!

[Kit_e_kat9]

The only factual post in this thread.

Now back to the uninformed speculation please.

And so was mine!  I'm not getting a 4% increase in my wages this year ... or any year in fact!   :'(  Very sad, but true!   :'(  :'(  :'(
Kit_e

[schmik]

If too many people take the opportunity to raise prices because they can,  then we are stuffed... ,most people i know (and myself) have got pretty much sweet FA pay rises in the last 3 years while the cost of everything has gone up.  I know we are becoming part of the problem but most of us have already stitched our wallets shut.   Add to that some more price rises... I'll take to my wallet with a staple gun.  If enough people take this approach then we are in deep shizzle.

Let's start a book... I reckon prices of everything will be up 10% by the end of the year.

Ain't REGRESS grand... walking around a dark house wearing an extra jumper and two pairs of socks. I miss electricity :'(   
Later on I may even treat myself and turn the computer back on to read this thread.

mike

[Chris F]

Prices will be going up with or without a carbon tax as they have always done. I guess all price rises from now on will be attributed to the carbon tax . We as a nation are doing better financially than most others on the planet during the GFC but we still whinge and carry on. It seems like Tony Abbott; Alan Jones etc have been very successful with their scare campaign.

[efjay]

If you're referring to "climategate" and the debacle about the stolen emails:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA.  The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Sorry but I will take a USA senate report over wiki any day...  Read the emails and see for yourself what is discussed. 

While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. The judge that sat on this case (Justice Barton) said the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change.  Watch the movie and you will probably realise it's not as evil as it's made out to be.

Minor...yeah right....
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Oh and considering he got SUED for the errors by 3000 scientists I think really the movie can be taken with a grain of salt.

** Al Gore Sued for Global Warming Lies by 30,000 scientists and Weather Channel Founder!!! **	Small | Large

http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/al-gore-being-sued-weather

It's well accepted by climate scientists that CO2 causes global warming - a lot of the more vocal "denialist "agree on this also.  The argument now is more about climate "sensitivity", or in simple terms, how much CO2 is too much, and what exactly will be the ramifications.

Sorry but if you read the papers a lot of the climate scientists are BACKING away from the outlandish claims of the past, well those that are not being paid by the greenies anyways. 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

Which means exactly what?..... The fact that in the past 150 years the global temperature has risen at a rate faster than in any other time in the earths history must mean something.  Just because there is a cooling trend for a couple of years, it doesn't mean you dismiss the last 148 years!  Yes, the average global temperature fuctuates year by year, but the long term trend is that it's heating, and will continue heating.  You need to look at all the available data and make an informed decision, not just look at a few years.

It means that although the amount of co2 has doubled in 150 years we have not seen the drastic warming some fools claimed we would.  Oh the claim of the "fastest rise in history" is debunked you know that yeah?  It was called the medieval warm period...
Now a final point for you to consider is the fact that 97% of TOTAL co2 output is natural...yep our man made pissy 3% is going to do what?

[fok]

I have my own business with three employees,they already want more money to counter the carbon tax and my supliers have already noted prices will rise.So all i can do is put my prices up which will then force my customers to put up there prices and so on and so on.I just want to go camping - for a long time.

[just startin]

Hi there Time,
      Good to see that someone has bothered to see how Carbon pricing really should work. To many gullible people listen to the doomsayers,  that because the "tax" on the top 500 producers - Minners & Electricity Producers (NOT SUPPLIERS) that all costs will rise to unpayable levels. Just today I went to buy a coffee and was told it has risen 50c due to the carbon tax.(electricity and water price rise)
See below as posted before on cost to the Power producers!!
  The price your power supplier pays to buy power from a generators is about 1.3-2.0 cents/kWh. The supplier charges us around 31-33cents/kWh.That's OK they have to maintain the poles & wires. When the Carbon Tax is implemented your bill should only rise around 0.5cents/kWh as the tax is added only to the cost for the coal, so generators can produce the power! BUT we are told our bills will double in the next couple of years so who is putting the cost up ?
    I also have no affiliation with the Gov. but do work in the Power Industry & have worked in Minning also that's why I can understand the cost assosiated with this so called Carbon Tax.
   

[Ricklanga]

Don't panic about being ripped of by companies using the carbon tax as an excuse to raise prices. The government will no doubt protect us just like the do with the oil companies & fuel prices  The carbon tax is not the only problem either. Check this out SAY NO TO THE DRINK CONTAINER TAX

I also would be surprised if Abbot repeals this tax. If anything at all he may reduce it. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

--
Richard

[fuji]

A little off topic


Was watching ABC this morning and they were saying over the next three years they will bring in about 13 plus Billion on the Miners Resource Rent Tax....

Oh well that should cover all the illegal queue jumping boat peoples expenses and the cost of our resources rescuing them...

While there kicking out pensioners from homes (public housing) there been in for 50 years plus so they can home these queue jumpers...

X1,000,000,000

[UTE 701]

Show me a business that will be happy to see their profit margin lower this year because of paying another Tax !

That's right they won't ... they will either up the price of their product to cover the tax meaning we pay more at the end of the line .

Or they will reduce the wages of those working there . Until it is so low that no Australians will work there , and their workforce will be entirely of foreigners .

What a joke .... Can't they come up with something that will really benefit the Aussie Battler !

And don't get me started on the Government saying their unemployment figures are ok . They have now idea how many out there are contractors , and only get a few hours work each day , by tightarse companies who don't want employees and just want an overload of contractors .

[D4D]

What a joke .... Can't they come up with something that will really benefit the Aussie Battler !

Joolia is the PM for the battlers and Swan thinks he is Robin Hood

[Sixtys Guy]

Our power costs in Tassie have just gone up 7% to cover the carbon tax, most of our power is generated through hydro so they will actually get carbon credits but we get slugged with a tax.
How does this work.

Beat me to it!

And now for my uninformed opinion..... (should have paid more attention in Economics class at Uni  ).........

If the top 500 polluters have to pay a carbon tax (or whatever else anyone would like to call it) and they can pass this cost onto consumers, then their cost is offset by more revenue. So where is the incentive to produce less carbon?

[briann532]

Joolia is the PM for the battlers and Swan thinks he is Robin Hood

Yes, but when there is nobody left to go through sherwood forest because they're broke or went elsewhere, what then?
The peasants will be greater in numbers, pregnant, hungry, lazy and her majesty will have no more mead and chickens to throw to them?
Robin hood will be tired and probably sick of being the only one working (albeit illegally and dishonestly - but it is politics so its ok to lie and cheat)
What will the have nots do then???

Oh woe is the day when one has to rise to the sun and toil in the fields to get food for the wenches and children.
Oh heavens above, we will have to hold a meeting on what to do.
Perhaps somewhere safe, like redhill. Lets call it a junket    free lunch     training exercise consultation conference.
We will gather, drink the reserves, baste the beasts and discuss perhaps for a minute whos fault it is. Lay the blame, shout and scream, promise to whip them, then rise to the next day.
A peasant can guide the steeds back to capitol hill where we can show victory and triumph over our achievement.
(Please fret nay - Oh wise ones.....By the time anyone realises we just got pissed and talked crapola at their expense, we will have devised some rebate to throw some corn into their haysacks and hold them till we triumph again at the next election with promises of future glory)

Now kiddies off to bed, and I'll go take my medication.
Sleep well, it could be worse, and trust me, shes trying to make it so.

[briann532]

So where is the incentive to produce less carbon?

Oh..................is that what its about
 

[D4D]

PMSL @ briann532 

[peteandkyles]

 

Beat me to it!

And now for my uninformed opinion..... (should have paid more attention in Economics class at Uni  ).........

If the top 500 polluters have to pay a carbon tax (or whatever else anyone would like to call it) and they can pass this cost onto consumers, then their cost is offset by more revenue. So where is the incentive to produce less carbon?

That's pretty much it. And the top biggest polluters are power stations so we will all pay. What annoys me is that if I buy a locally made product I will pay more for labour and now more on carbon tax. If I buy that same product from China I will pay less for labour and no tax as the even the shipping of that product to Australian shores is carbon tax exempt? How does this support any industry here at all?

[jnik]

If the top 500 polluters have to pay a carbon tax (or whatever else anyone would like to call it) and they can pass this cost onto consumers, then their cost is offset by more revenue. So where is the incentive to produce less carbon?

I'm not a fan of the carbon tax.

In theory, a price on carbon makes renewable energy sources more competitive. Sure, those big 500 polluters will increase prices to cover their increased costs (probably more than!), but at some point the price on carbon will allow them to switch to a renewable source of energy (or their competitors will).

Mind you, I think the price on carbon will have to increase a hell of a lot for that to happen.

[jnik]

What annoys me is that if I buy a locally made product I will pay more for labour and now more on carbon tax. If I buy that same product from China I will pay less for labour and no tax as the even the shipping of that product to Australian shores is carbon tax exempt? How does this support any industry here at all?

Very good point. This is what scares me the most.

[jnik]

Mind you, on the other side of the coin, it does bother me when people talk about China polluting more than us.

Of course they (as a country) do! There's 1.3 billion of them.

I think it'd be a bit cheeky to ask them to lower their emissions below ours.

When you turn it around and focus on emissions per person, we're #11 (18.9 tonnes per capita) while China is #78 (5.3 tonnes per capita).

Sure, if we reduce our countries emissions it will have a negligible direct impact on the global problem, but it's a bit hard to say "5.3 tonnes per person is too high" while we're at 18.9!!!

And the fact that a portion of their emissions is in the manufacture of goods we consume doesn't help.

[peteandkyles]

Very good point. This is what scares me the most.

If this was really about reducing our carbon footprint you would consider and tax appropriately all good, but because of free trade we can't. China will introduce the carbon tax in 2015 and will fix it at $2. So who is laughing all the way to the bank? Not us...

[jnik]

The average household will be compensated by more than the expected price rises, so this is nice in theory.

But ...

"Leaked research prepared by accounting firm Deloittes for Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson estimates a carbon price would need to be $40 a tonne even to drive a shift from coal power to gas-fired power. [...] This means it will do nothing to encourage renewable energy, like wind and solar power, which would need a far higher price to get a look in. It will not close a single coal fired power station."
http://www.solidarity.net.au/35/carbon-tax-wont-stop-new-coal-power/

So we'd need to go from $23/tonne to $40/tonne to move to gas ... I'd like to know how much higher it would have to go to encourage the big power generators to move over to renewables.

[Big Nath]

For those who care, the pre carbon tax roast was great. Although the post tax veggies were not the best. That was put down to the pre carbon tax gas in my weber q.

[rotare]

Sorry but I will take a USA senate report over wiki any day...  Read the emails and see for yourself what is discussed.

LOL....Written like a true denialist!  Dismiss any facts,evidence or data that doesn't support your argument, and simply use whatever information or source that comes to hand that does support your case.  Can I suggest perhaps you read page 34 of the senate report yourself (the conclusion), paying particular attention to the comment; "The next phase of the Minority‘s investigation will explore whether any such violations occurred".  You do realise the senate report was pure speculation at that point, and simply suggested further investigation of the leaked emails was required?  It's not any form of conclusive evidence whatsoever!

Oh and considering he got SUED for the errors by 3000 scientists I think really the movie can be taken with a grain of salt.

So Al Gore got sued did he?.....  That threat of legal action to Al Gore was made 4 years ago, so what ever happened?  Please let us all know what the outcome of the trial was.....

Oh the claim of the "fastest rise in history" is debunked you know that yeah?  It was called the medieval warm period...

Debunked?

"Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Now a final point for you to consider is the fact that 97% of TOTAL co2 output is natural...yep our man made pissy 3% is going to do what?

It's 3% extra added on top of the naturally emitted CO2 - year on year, and every year the amount of CO2 emitted by humans is increasing.  Some of this is naturally absorbed, but around 60% isn't, hence why ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing...... unless of course you are going to dispute that CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing!   

I'm no greenie, nor am I trying to change your opinion on this subject, I'm simply pointing out that the majority of what you have posted to date is neither accurate, factual or supported by mainstream science. 

[Bird]

you will not pay a carbon tax.. 
Their costs may/will filter down through the products/services they produce

So companies thru the goodness of their shareholders will wear the costs?

The only reason we have a carbon tax is because gillard needed the greens to form a government,she could not care about the enviroment only about being pm of this country she's stuffing.Bob Brown quit as he knows the backlash is going to kill both labor & the greens.

We have a winner.

[stepheng]

mm didnt want to get into this debate BUT..the carbon tax will not stop other countries polluting but will reduce Australia's pollution and over time hopefully see more investment in green energy etc that is a good thing...I know you will go you hippy aint gonna happen. Have a look at how many people now have solar on their campers and homes...I have both and apart from the savings I reckon it is great to make my own electricity...5 or 10 years ago, the cost was prohibitive and never going to happen...like computers it will only get cheaper.

It will make the companies that pollut pay more, that is a good thing....they will either pass it onto their customers and customers will go somewere else or invest in cheaper alternatives, that is a good thing.

I am no scientist but if it reduces the amount of pollution in Australia and makes it a better environment for my children, that is a good thing and I am happy to pay a bit extra for that.