Cost of doing nothing - valid point medhead. Except there is no consensus on this. Putting the deniers to one side, the problem is that there is great debate (and constant change in views) as to what happens if we do nothing, let alone being able to measure it.
Most sane people accept the planet is warming, most sane people accept that man has/is contributing to that.
But the jury is firmly out on -
1/ How much is man affecting it
2/ How much can man fix the problem
3/ How much is natural cycle
4/ If we stopped ALL pollution today, would it actually stop the planet warming?
I look around me everyday and I see extreme waste. I might feel that a carbon tax is misdirected in addressing this wastefulness. But I firmly believe that our waste production can be greatly reduced with very little effort. One day this planet will run out of resources, when that happens will be dependent on how efficiently we are at using those resources. Once mineral resources run out we will start to regress back to the dark ages in terms of our lifestyle, having no plastic and minimal metals and lots of timber and such. So for me a carbon tax is just one part of improving efficiency in using our resources.
People go on about the economic cost for Australia. But I look at other countries, like Germany, that have much higher labour costs than Australia; they don't seem to be in trouble because of their disadvantage due to labour costs. Therefore I think Australian industry can adapt. The biggest disadvantage for Australian industry is this pervasive idea that we are the world's quarry.
The Lie - an announcement of a policy is a lie/promise. The fact that it hasn't passed parliament doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.
Sorry, I was being [something, not sure of the word maybe factitious]. someone said the the promise was there would be no carbon tax under a Gillard government. There is no carbon tax at this stage - hence it isn't a lie yet.
Yes - you should feel strongly regardless of which party they belong to.
True, but I believe you should feel strongly about the lies of both sides. IMO a politically motivated objection to the lie of one party should be viewed in terms of that bias.
Question for the record though - which Liberal lie are you referring to?
If you're talking about GST - then you have your facts wrong. Howard changed his view, then he took his new view to an election and firmly and honestly placed it front and centre as an election issue. He won the election based on the revised policy.
Gillard could do the same - she could say she's changed her mind, but as she had promised not to have a carbon tax, she will not implement one until the electorate has had a chance to vote on it.
If you want to draw a parallel with the Liberals - then this is the only option she has. She won't do it of course because she wants it to be a fait accompli before the election.
It's bad politics and she's made her own problem.
Yes, I'm referring to the GST. The facts stand that Howard said never, ever have a GST. Subsequent events don't change this fact. This is exactly the same as no carbon tax. Hence, I object to mentioning the lie for politically motivated reasons if you don't also mention the GST lie.
The fact that Howard changed his mind doesn't reverse the lie. (personally i dont think howard ever changed his mind, he just told the electoral what they wanted to hear to get elected). I know that Gillard and the government have also said that they changed their minds or the situation in parliament has result in this change. Again paralleling the GST.
The election issue is yet to play out for the carbon tax, this is a live issue so the fact that GST went to an election is irrelevant as we don't know what the outcome will be here. My recollection of GST is that the idea of going to an election only came later in the piece. I'm not sure that an election was howard's original intention. I would also note that there was only 2 years between never ever and the GST election. It is a very short timeframe to develop the GST, so I suspect that the liberals were always working on the GST from day one. The cynic in me says "yes Howard changed his mind, on election night, right after his acceptance speech". Again paralleling what is being said about the carbon tax.
Finally, the record shows that more people voted against the GST in 1998 than voted for the GST.
What is my point, basically that any mention of any lie is an irrelevance. Get on and deal with the real issues not political point scoring. I think someone else has already expressed this idea much better than me in this thread.
