Carbon Tax

[TonyHancock]

Who else apart from one poster here actually pays the extra to QF for carbon offsets when try purchase their tickets online?

Yep! :shock:

Don't ask! ISO14001and companies wanting to appear green.

 

[drron]

Best press comment i have seen-

Source: The Daily Telegraph

 

[Turbo-g]

Who is the 51st largest Carbon producer and are they wobbling at the knees? or sitting back saying "Phew"

 

[Turbo-g]

not trying to domineer here but i work for a mining company that pays the airfares for myself and my collegues, question is do they get stung twice?

 

[ethernet]

For 50 to 200 polluters they don't need a tax - Regulation will do it.
Closing the worst of the worst - is how China is doing it.
And you don't need a tax when > CPI increases have already done the hard lifting.
Given our population size, getting rid of Aluminum smelters will do the trick. They can come back when Nuclear is back on the table.
'To set a good example' is not a reason, and at the next election there will be another 'example' made. Knowing that compounded price increases above CPI is not compensation, but punishment for living in a cold or hot location.

The real truth is that Australian Polluters will not be able to 'buy' carbon credits from overseas. To its not a Global level playing field proposition, but a brand new tax.

 

[medhead]

And on the flip side it seems that Australian companies, and us flyers, are going to be competitively disadvantaged without a carbon tax.

European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares | The Australian

[insert sarcastic comment RE no other country in the world doing this and that the EU is what 20 countries]

 

[dfcatch]

And on the flip side it seems that Australian companies, and us flyers, are going to be competitively disadvantaged without a carbon tax.

European Union tax on carbon to push up airfares | The Australian

[insert sarcastic comment RE no other country in the world doing this and that the EU is what 20 countries]

Without China, India and the USA in the mix (at the very least), you're not achieving anything for the environment. All you're doing is hurting our own economy - which paradoxically - then impedes our ability to fund environmental initiatives for the long term.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in global warming or not.

As it is said - "it's the economy stupid!"

 

[medhead]

Without China, India and the USA in the mix (at the very least), you're not achieving anything for the environment. All you're doing is hurting our own economy - which paradoxically - then impedes our ability to fund environmental initiatives for the long term.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in global warming or not.

As it is said - "it's the economy stupid!"

Did you read the story? Your hurting the economy without as well as per the story. Getting slugged an extra tax by the EU makes Australian airlines less competitive. "It is the economy stupid". BTW read the story it says nothing about believing in global warming and neither did I in posting it

As for the Alan jones argument about china, India and etc. China doing much more than Australia is to control emission.

 

[eastwest101]

I think the EU have shown they are pretty good at hurting their own economy, but this will be interesting as to how the WTO will handle it, as I understand it - the proposed EU scheme will collect revenue on a distance and effeciency based formula.

Does anyone know of a country that has an ETS or Carbon Tax outside Europe, and how their carriers will be treated?

 

[dfcatch]

Did you read the story? Your hurting the economy without as well as per the story. Getting slugged an extra tax by the EU makes Australian airlines less competitive. "It is the economy stupid". BTW read the story it says nothing about believing in global warming and neither did I in posting it

As for the Alan jones argument about china, India and etc. China doing much more than Australia is to control emission.

Medhead - I was commenting generally.

However -

1/ China et al are significantly higher contributors to global emissions than we are. Not to mention a huge trading partner. A carbon tax that's places us on an uneven playing field does two things - a) does nothing to reduce global emissions, b) makes us less competitive.

2/ Not sure what Alan Jones has to do with anything.

3/ How many flights per week do Australian airlines have to Europe? What percentage of total international flights is this?

4/ Introducing a Carbon Tax in Australia - as it's currently proposed - will increase the costs on ALL flights.... Not just a small handful going to Europe.

It will be interesting to watch. But this doesn't change my opinion whatsoever.

 

[medhead]

Medhead - I was commenting generally.

Ohh, missed the generality due to the quote followed by your reply.

However -

1/ China et al are significantly higher contributors to global emissions than we are. Not to mention a huge trading partner. A carbon tax that's places us on an uneven playing field does two things - a) does nothing to reduce global emissions, b) makes us less competitive.

2/ Not sure what Alan Jones has to do with anything.

3/ How many flights per week do Australian airlines have to Europe? What percentage of total international flights is this?

4/ Introducing a Carbon Tax in Australia - as it's currently proposed - will increase the costs on ALL flights.... Not just a small handful going to Europe.

It will be interesting to watch. But this doesn't change my opinion whatsoever.

1. Still china are doing a hell of a lot more to reduce their emission.

2. Classic Jones position - china's not doing it (ignoring that they are working to reduce emission). My kids do that "oh but my sibling doesn't have to do XYZ why should I"

3. 34 flights to Europe per week. Looks like 33 return flights. Or 10.6% of qantas' weekly international flights. A handful?

4. Is greater than 10% a handful?

 

[dfcatch]

Ohh, missed the generality due to the quote followed by your reply.



1. Still china are doing a hell of a lot more to reduce their emission.

2. Classic Jones position - china's not doing it (ignoring that they are working to reduce emission). My kids do that "oh but my sibling doesn't have to do XYZ why should I"

3. 34 flights to Europe per week. Looks like 33 return flights. Or 10.6% of qantas' weekly international flights. A handful?

4. Is greater than 10% a handful?

Wow Medhead!

I didn't actually expect a numerical figure for the European flights. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Actually, I was just too lazy to go and look. QF really has that many flights to Europe? Hmmm.

Oh well, at least my flights to LOTFAP aren't affected

 

[medhead]

Wow Medhead!

I didn't actually expect a numerical figure for the European flights. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Actually, I was just too lazy to go and look. QF really has that many flights to Europe? Hmmm.

Oh well, at least my flights to LOTFAP aren't affected

Yeah, I was surprised, that's why I put the numbers in. Thought it was a valid question, since I didn't actually know the answer , so searched the timetable, SYD-LHR 13 flights, MEL-LHR 14, LHR SYD/MEL 28 (yeah there is a missing plane there somewhere), SYD-FRA 7, FRA-SYD 7. Then the Qantas data file says there are 630 international qantas flights per week.

 

[dfcatch]

Yeah, I was surprised, that's why I put the numbers in. Thought it was a valid question, since I didn't actually know the answer , so searched the timetable, SYD-LHR 13 flights, MEL-LHR 14, LHR SYD/MEL 28 (yeah there is a missing plane there somewhere), SYD-FRA 7, FRA-SYD 7. Then the Qantas data file says there are 630 international qantas flights per week.

I knew we flew to LHR and FRA - I forgot that MEL flys there as well as SYD.

Cheers

 

[eastwest101]

The EU Carbon dioxide plan is being challenged by US and Chinese carriers - wonder how long it will take before the ruling on this one from the WTO? Or will the prospect of a trade war with China focus the EU's attention?

From Aviation Business: The Week in Brief 23 June 2011
" The Chinese Air Transport Association, which represents 33 Chinese carriers, is threatening countermeasures if the European Union imposes its looming emissions tax on Chinese airlines flying into Europe. Given Europe's trading balance with China, any sanctions imposed by the latter could have a significant impact. This pressure could turn out to be more effective in altering the EU tax policy than even the US court moves. "

 

[drron]

Yes the emerging markets are starting to flex their muscles.
I am interested to see what response our government will have to Indonesia's response to our banning of live exports.They have given us a 2 week deadline to restart the trade or we lose the whole live export market.Do dollars beat principle?

Sorry to go off topic again.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I'm confused as to why nobody has pointed out to mr and mrs general public that te carbon tax dollars will go directly to the federal government.

- it won't lower emissions or carbon usage.
- none of the money is going into sustainable energy research. (ie: the environment does not benefit)

It's essentially a 10% GST hike that everyone will pay.

 

[Sifor]

While I don't support the Carbon tax, apparently the rationale is it will force businesses to change their practices as the incentive to change to clean energy will trump the incentive to pass on the cost to consumers.

I'm not an economist (rather an accountant and lawyer to be!) but I have frequent debates with my mates who are. They never seem to be able to articulate why businesses will not pass on the cost. Heh.

 

[Fantic125]

<snip>4. Is greater than 10% a handful?

Off topic/

A handful is defined as "a small, undefined number or quantity", therefore by definition a specified quantity of 34 flights does not constitute 'a handful'.

/On topic

 

[odysseus]

I'm confused as to why nobody has pointed out to mr and mrs general public that te carbon tax dollars will go directly to the federal government.

Which you'd expect given it's also the federal government who will be compensating mr and mrs general public.

- it won't lower emissions or carbon usage.

It will lower carbon usage.

Who wants to pay more when there are cheaper alternatives available, and even when something costs more by itself. When the fuel prices spiked higher petrol usage fell and public transport increased, as just one straightforward example.