Carbon Tax

[Slats7]

When the miners talk about 'moving off-shore' it's in regards to expansion projects. If the miners are going to be paying a useless carbon tax here in Australia then they are more likely to expand into the overseas markets.

What about foreign investment?? Seeing a carbon tax coming in is going to turn away foreign investment IMO.

We went to the polls back in August being told there would be no carbon tax under the government Julia Gillard leads and as we know that is a lie. I would still be against the tax but the fact she lied to every single Australian is unacceptable.

 

[Slats7]

This top 50 list really surprised me.

Qantas Airways - total direct carbon emissions measured in tonnes are more than: Santos, Xstrata, OneSteel, BP & Shell in Australia.

Qantas is not that far behind BHP!

 

[eastwest101]

Yes the calculations of emissions will be interesting, particularly with mixed overseas and domestic networks. Provided that the proposed scheme does happen there are really two likely possibilities:

1. Australian carriers will pass on the cost to their customers and/or
2. Maybe more "juristiction shopping" for operating and basing of aircraft outside of Australia - I think we may see some business restructuring, outsourcing/codesharing and re-registration of aircraft to get this to work.

 

[medhead]

You still need to measure the cost of doing nothing to decide if it worth doing something. This is an important point that seems to be totally ignored by sceptics.

I don't think Australia introducing a tax is going to encourage India & China to do the same. Why are they not jumping up and down and saying lets bring in a tax because Australia is?

The fact is China is still building one new coal power station each week! Yes they might be building nuclear power but one new coal power station a week is offsetting this.

the fact that china is building nuclear power at all is a massive sign that they are taking carbon seriously. They have stuff all uranium resources, I've been to a conference where they geologists were talking about targeting a seam of uneconomic uranium no more than a meter thick of the edge of a coal deposit. They are going to have to get uranium from the rest of the world. It would be far cheaper for them to only build coal power.

Here is a country that has realised the important of diversity in power supply. Unlikely Australia that is still debating about the power source.

When the miners talk about 'moving off-shore' it's in regards to expansion projects. If the miners are going to be paying a useless carbon tax here in Australia then they are more likely to expand into the overseas markets.

expansion or new project the minerals are still in the ground in Australia and those miners have to come back eventually to get them. In fact, no expansions is better as the exist jobs remain and the life of the resource is longer.

We went to the polls back in August being told there would be no carbon tax under the government Julia Gillard leads and as we know that is a lie. I would still be against the tax but the fact she lied to every single Australian is unacceptable.

are you one of those? How do you feel when liberal politicians lie? Just as strongly?

As to whether that is a lie, sorry but we don't know that is a lie at all. There is currently no carbon tax. And unless you can see the future you can't say is will definitely be a carbon tax under this government.

 

[Slats7]

You still need to measure the cost of doing nothing to decide if it worth doing something. This is an important point that seems to be totally ignored by sceptics.



the fact that china is building nuclear power at all is a massive sign that they are taking carbon seriously. They have stuff all uranium resources, I've been to a conference where they geologists were talking about targeting a seam of uneconomic uranium no more than a meter thick of the edge of a coal deposit. They are going to have to get uranium from the rest of the world. It would be far cheaper for them to only build coal power.

Here is a country that has realised the important of diversity in power supply. Unlikely Australia that is still debating about the power source.


expansion or new project the minerals are still in the ground in Australia and those miners have to come back eventually to get them. In fact, no expansions is better as the exist jobs remain and the life of the resource is longer.



are you one of those? How do you feel when liberal politicians lie? Just as strongly?

As to whether that is a lie, sorry but we don't know that is a lie at all. There is currently no carbon tax. And unless you can see the future you can't say is will definitely be a carbon tax under this government.

The miners don't have to come back to Australia at all. BHP, RIO, Xstrata are all expanding in West Africa which is being labelled as the next 'Pilbara'.

She went to the election and promised there would be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead - she has now announced a Carbon Tax! That is what I call a lie.

 

[Smackbum]

She went to the election and promised there would be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead - she has now announced a Carbon Tax! That is what I call a lie.

Yep - Labor went into the election with the promise that if elected they would not be bringing in a carbon tax in that term. And the electorate chose not to give them a mandate. Then both Tony and Julia had the task of negotiating a minority government with the 5 independents. Tony screwed it up big time so we have Julia as the Prime Minister but without an absolute majority in either house.

So she has to negotiate legislation, and one of the policies that has been born out of this alliance is the carbon tax. It still has to negotiate its way through the upper house but that is how democracy works - the people take their pick and the elected representatives have their say. Not perfect but the best model we have. After this there is another interesting debate to be had over pokies, but lets not get into that now.

So what part of the word democracy don't you understand?

 

[Slats7]

Yep - Labor went into the election with the promise that if elected they would not be bringing in a carbon tax in that term. And the electorate chose not to give them a mandate. Then both Tony and Julia had the task of negotiating a minority government with the 5 independents. Tony screwed it up big time so we have Julia as the Prime Minister but without an absolute majority in either house.

So she has to negotiate legislation, and one of the policies that has been born out of this alliance is the carbon tax. It still has to negotiate its way through the upper house but that is how democracy works - the people take their pick and the elected representatives have their say. Not perfect but the best model we have. After this there is another interesting debate to be had over pokies, but lets not get into that now.

So what part of the word democracy don't you understand?

She is the PM for cying out loud! Yes she made a deal with the Greens and Independents but no she has the power to yes or no to a Carbon Tax.

She lied and that's a fact.

End of story!

 

[straitman]

How would the new avgas bio go here anat0l? I believe it has been trialled.

Do you mean bio Jet fuel :?:

Avgas is a piston engine fuel.

 

[straitman]

However introducing a carbon tax will solve the Government's budget problems.Call me a cynic but this announcement came just before we were warned of the growing budget shortfall.

The cynic in me must agree with this :!:

I just see this as a curved ball (reinvented) version of the RSPT :!: :shock:

 

[Alanslegal]

She is the PM for cying out loud! Yes she made a deal with the Greens and Independents but no she has the power to yes or no to a Carbon Tax.

She lied and that's a fact.

End of story!

And Tony is a climate change sceptic ...... yet has his own climate change policy! Why do something if you don't even believe it??

Without getting political, seriously, what's the point in Australia doing anything and I really mean it. What's the point?? Even if China, India and USA all said they will do something right this minute ..... it still doesn't change anything because Australia still pollutes literally nothing compared to the world. Why even care about Earth Hour and switching off our lights for a measley hour?! It probably doesn't even do anything for our earth other than making our hearts feel good.

That said, I have read enough and seen enough to believe the argument that the world climate is changing and that we need to do something about it. I'm more than happy to take that risk and take action.

 

[Andyzx]

This top 50 list really surprised me.
Qantas Airways - total direct carbon emissions measured in tonnes are more than: Santos, Xstrata, OneSteel, BP & Shell in Australia. Qantas is not that far behind BHP!

This is because the "miners" don't actually make a lot of carbon emissions, they use some fuel, power in their mines and refining but dont really pump it out. We do that by using the coal, oil, etc. The ore is smelted overseas (exporting the carbon problem). OneSteel recycle a lot of their steel, over smelting. QF, VA use fuel and a lot of it, say ~140-160t of fuel to Singapore, thats a lot of by products.

If the rest of the airlines are not paying the tax for flights ex Oz then how will QF etc pass it on:?:

 

[anat0l]

She lied and that's a fact.

End of story!

So the mere fact that she lied is enough evidence to say that a carbon tax is bad? Some of you are unbelievable.



Get away from the damn lie or no lie and get a better reason why you truly believe this carbon tax is bad and/or unworkable.

As for the cynics, don't forget your destructive speculation is just as fallacious as any other supposed pie-in-the-sky constructive speculation, so for the love of God come up with a better argument.

 

[straitman]

That said, I have read enough and seen enough to believe the argument that the world climate is changing and that we need to do something about it. I'm more than happy to take that risk and take action.

What this argument needs is a set of balanced research presented in a balanced way and thus far we do not have it. There is just as much pro and anti climate change research out there but literally non of that research and those facts ever see the light of day. All we ever hear are a bunch of emotional arguments in either direction.

One of the better studies out there concludes that there is 'probably' a good case for global warming and talks about a 2 degree temperature increase. Error factor on the research (the bit we never hear about) is +/- 6 degrees.

 

[anat0l]

One of the better studies out there concludes that there is 'probably' a good case for global warming and talks about a 2 degree temperature increase. Error factor on the research (the bit we never hear about) is +/- 6 degrees.

For the anti-climate change persons amongst us, apart from praying for your souls I'll hope that the error is on the -6 side of the scale (although that would still have some interesting side effects).

 

[Kendall Roy]

Given the recent discussions around compensation and reports stating that some people may be better off, this is simply turning into a Socialist wealth distribution exercise.

Julia would love most of AUS to be walking down the street with a hammer + sickle.

PS: Climate change is real - it's been real for over millions of years!

 

[simongr]

How is taxing QF going to reduce my burden of CO2 on the planet? Similarly - how does taxing BHP change my CO2 emissions based on my consumption patterns?

Sure the price of some goods will rise but I will have no visibility of that when I decide whether to buy product A (produced using green energy) or product B (produced using dead dinosaurs).

get away from the damn lie or no lie and get a better reason why you truly believe this carbon tax is bad and/or unworkable.

I think there are two issues here - firstly she lied and has demonstrated a complete lack of integrity. For this I think she should resign. This is not related to the workability of the carbon tax. She was a terrible Deputy PM, presiding over the wasteful and ill focussed BER program and she is a terrible PM. Once this disgrace is removed from power the country will be a better place under her equally loathesome Treasurer takes power.

Back to the carbon tax - I have said above why I think a tax on producers is pointless. It is consumers that decide to consume - producers only meet those demands. If the politicians can only come with a tax as a way to reduce carbon outputs then personally I think it should be another tax like the GST that is clearly visible to the public - buy a TV pay 15% extra - buy a bale of hay - 3%, buy a bunch of growing trees in a sustainable net -ve carbon producing forrest - pay -20%...

 

[Sifor]

Given the recent discussions around compensation and reports stating that some people may be better off, this is simply turning into a Socialist wealth distribution exercise.

Julia would love most of AUS to be walking down the street with a hammer + sickle.

PS: Climate change is real - it's been real for over millions of years!

Had to!
[video=youtube;ptccZze7VxQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptccZze7VxQ[/video]

Back on topic..

The reason why, in my opinion, the carbon tax will stifle business in Australia, especially large global firms, is because they will become less competitive on the international market. BHP, WPL, RIO won't absorb the cost, they will, like all other businesses, pass it onto their customers. Naturally, their customers will look elsewhere to find the cheapest product.

We can talk economics and politics all day and not get anywhere. I think Gillard should take the carbon tax to the people in the form of a general election. Of course she won't do that because many people are not happy with her alliance with the Greens and her other stuff ups. Hopefully, Labor or Liberal, there would be a majority government - I can't stand those Greens and I think many would agree.

 

[NM]

This is all about politics and not about fairness or the environment.

Taxing CO2 is crazy. The world needs CO2 to survive and present levels of CO2 in the environment compared with historic levels are difficult to quantify. Some say there are extremely high and others say that are very low causing a degree of starvation for the vegetation that requires CO2 and converts it to O2 for us to breath.

There is no way we can consider Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. It is colourless, odorless and essential for life. Nature around us is very efficient at dealing with CO2, including the oceans removing excess amounts and converting it to massive amounts of limestone and other carbonate rocks, and plants doing their magic of photosynthesis.

Its also been found that plant life flourishes in the areas around CO2 sources like coal-fueled power stations which use scrubbers to remove particulate matter and other nasties from the chimneys to allow sunlight and carbon dioxide to work the miracle of photosynthesis. Similarly for CO2 sources like volcanoes.

“The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all of the carbon dioxide within a metre of the ground in about five minutes.”
- Freeman Dyson, Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society.
(Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson)

There may well be environmental problems are associated with other carbon derivatives, such as CO (carbon monoxide) and the many fluorocarbons etc. But I do not believe spending money to reduce CO2 is the right approach to the stewardship responsibilities we have to look after the Earth on which we live.

An interesting perspective here YouTube - Prof. Dr. Ian Plimer Präsentation

So my perspective: Yes we need to be good stewards of the environment we have. But CO2 is not a pollutant nor a problem and placing a tax cost on CO2 is just a grab for tax revenue and votes at the next election. The tax, nor any subsequent reduction in CO2 emissions will have any positive impact on protecting our environment.

 

[simongr]

So my perspective: Yes we need to be good stewards of the environment we have. But CO2 is not a pollutant nor a problem and placing a tax cost on CO2 is just a grab for tax revenue and votes at the next election. The tax, nor any subsequent reduction in CO2 emissions will have any positive impact on protecting our environment.

I agree - I think we should be taxed for the energy consumed in production as we move further to protect our natural resources (e.g.I personally avoid using palm oil for this reason as much as possible).

 

[medhead]

The miners don't have to come back to Australia at all. BHP, RIO, Xstrata are all expanding in West Africa which is being labelled as the next 'Pilbara'.

Come on, a bit of forward thinking. Say they walk away from australia. When the pilbara of Africa is gone, when the other deposits cost 5 times as much to extract as australian deposits even with the tax. Of course, they will come back to Australia. To suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

She is the PM for cying out loud! Yes she made a deal with the Greens and Independents but no she has the power to yes or no to a Carbon Tax.

She lied and that's a fact.

End of story!

Yes she is the PM she can't say no in the current situation as that will lead to stagnant government. This is the political reality. Any deal made is dependent on negotiation of all points.

Ok, John Howard lied. Is that end of story as well?

What this argument needs is a set of balanced research presented in a balanced way and thus far we do not have it. There is just as much pro and anti climate change research out there but literally non of that research and those facts ever see the light of day. All we ever hear are a bunch of emotional arguments in either direction.

Exactly, the one thing that is sadly missing. The level of public debate in this country is appalling. And people like Andrew Bolt et al are not helping. Well neither side is helping.

[

BHP, WPL, RIO won't absorb the cost,

They deal in globally priced commodities. They have very little choice except to absorb the cost.