Carbon Tax

[Smackbum]

Isn't this forum overrun by capitalists?

Then how come so many of them are such poor economists?

If pollution costs nothing and a company can make $1 more by doubling their pollution output then guess what the shareholders will vote for?

Oh really? Are you very sure??

By putting a price on pollution they invite competition, as if you reduce pollution you increase profits. Of course there are some industries who either won't or can't offset these costs and will just add them to the price. This is where the other lever comes into play - the government takes some of the money they have charged businesses and uses it to rebate the increased costs. The consumers also have a choice - consume as before and get the rebate to offset the carbon tax, or reduce consumption. Trouble is - prices for energy are going up steeply in any case, so if you don't want to fork out more and more for it then you'd better look for more efficient ways to live.

There is definite evidence that the price of petrol has changed people's behaviour - falcons and commodores are dropping out of favour and people are downsizing to less fuel-hungry options. They are also aware of options like insulation and solar power - unfortunately these options have not been managed well, but most people I know have one or both.

Maybe with a bit of effort we will no longer be one of the world's top polluters, regardless of those that don't care.

 

[dfcatch]

Then how come so many of them are such poor economists?

If pollution costs nothing and a company can make $1 more by doubling their pollution output then guess what the shareholders will vote for?

Oh really? Are you very sure??

By putting a price on pollution they invite competition, as if you reduce pollution you increase profits. Of course there are some industries who either won't or can't offset these costs and will just add them to the price. This is where the other lever comes into play - the government takes some of the money they have charged businesses and uses it to rebate the increased costs. The consumers also have a choice - consume as before and get the rebate to offset the carbon tax, or reduce consumption. Trouble is - prices for energy are going up steeply in any case, so if you don't want to fork out more and more for it then you'd better look for more efficient ways to live.

There is definite evidence that the price of petrol has changed people's behaviour - falcons and commodores are dropping out of favour and people are downsizing to less fuel-hungry options. They are also aware of options like insulation and solar power - unfortunately these options have not been managed well, but most people I know have one or both.

Maybe with a bit of effort we will no longer be one of the world's top polluters, regardless of those that don't care.

Except that we're not one of the world's top polluters.. Despite the propaganda.

Where we do pollute is that we are a coal-powered country, unlike those European countries who are trumpeted as examples that we should follow. If we want to follow their example and go nuclear, then that certainly would reduce our emissions.

 

[Durin's Bane]

Just an ALP propaganda hack these days. In fact, probably apt that he's working with the ALP given they're a failure also!

I won't get started on Flannery.... wasn't he the bloke who said Brisbane would run out of water by 2007? :shock:

He also said Adelaide would run out of water by 2009. The man is a joke... but is Australia's 'Climate Commissioner'! Jooliya loves men named Tim I guess...

 

[Durin's Bane]

Re: Isn't this forum overrun by capitalists?

Maybe with a bit of effort we will no longer be one of the world's top polluters, regardless of those that don't care.

We may be on a per capita basis... but as a percentage of the planet we're insignificant.

If they really want to change people's behaviour why are 'low income' households being reimbursed? Or does the Labor-Watermelon alliance only want to redistribute wealth?

 

[Smackbum]

Re: Isn't this forum overrun by capitalists?

We may be on a per capita basis... but as a percentage of the planet we're insignificant.

If they really want to change people's behaviour why are 'low income' households being reimbursed? Or does the Labor-Watermelon alliance only want to redistribute wealth?

Oh - so because there are 50 Chinese for every Australian then the average Aussies is allowed to pollute 50 times more than the average Chinese citizen? Put that one in the dictionary under "arrogance".

The majority of households are being reimbursed under this scheme because it is designed to reduce pollution by the producers. As I mentioned before, the consumers already have price pressures that will reduce consumption.

What does "Watermelon" mean? Is it a clever slogan to hide the lack of serious comment?

 

[ejb]

Watermelon. Green on the outside red in the middle. A very good description of the "Greens".

ejb


Sent from my iPhone so please ignore auto corrects!

 

[medhead]

you're still going with this? Hopefully, we've realised that the Libs are effectively doing a carbon tax as well.

Alternatives
China is wheeling Thorium and cost effective nuclear reactors out. This means increased availability of the right sort of nuclear oxides. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As the Airports have been sold off and free of state interference, its going to make good financial sense to build Australia's first nuclear augmented heat-exchanger at Sydney Airport /MAP where the greenies will have no say in the matter.

You're dreaming. (a dream I share in part) But being on commonwealth land will not keep the greenies uninvolved. In fact the greens hold greater power at a commonwealth level. We can't even get a uranium conversion plant in this country and that only changes the chemical form.

 

[dfcatch]

Oh - so because there are 50 Chinese for every Australian then the average Aussies is allowed to pollute 50 times more than the average Chinese citizen? Put that one in the dictionary under "arrogance".

The majority of households are being reimbursed under this scheme because it is designed to reduce pollution by the producers. As I mentioned before, the consumers already have price pressures that will reduce consumption.

What does "Watermelon" mean? Is it a clever slogan to hide the lack of serious comment?

We could also just pop a few more kids out, and then we'll be one of the smaller polluters again

 

[ejb]

Labor Carbon Tax spokesman on 2UE in Sydney this morning, no idea what the tax will be but 9 out of 10 households will be better off, only big polluters will pay. What rubbish, if 9 out of 10 households better off how is this tax going to help the environment?

It is merely a method of getting more revenue to pay off the debt and get the budget into surplus while buying more votes from the lower and middle income earners.

ejb

 

[drron]

You're dreaming. (a dream I share in part) But being on commonwealth land will not keep the greenies uninvolved. In fact the greens hold greater power at a commonwealth level. We can't even get a uranium conversion plant in this country and that only changes the chemical form.

Loved it when staying in Kobe.Paper had articles re nuclear protests in Tokyo.Hiroshima survivors saying how they are still suffering 66 years later.And an article extolling the health benefits of the Silver water hot springs at Arima-because they contain Radium.

 

[medhead]

I would guess 9 out of 10 households are low to middle income. The top 10% of households will have to pay and they are probably the biggest energy users per household member as well. What's wrong with encouraging them to reduce their energy use?

I would also ask if anyone thinks The Libs are any more prepared or logical with their carbon tax. What's the alternative?

 

[drron]

I would guess 9 out of 10 households are low to middle income. The top 10% of households will have to pay and they are probably the biggest energy users per household member as well. What's wrong with encouraging them to reduce their energy use?

The problem is possibly 10-20% of the top income earners are already Neville Wran's chardonnay sippers and already have their Prius.The rest are the least sensitive to price.

 

[dfcatch]

I would guess 9 out of 10 households are low to middle income. The top 10% of households will have to pay and they are probably the biggest energy users per household member as well. What's wrong with encouraging them to reduce their energy use?

I would also ask if anyone thinks The Libs are any more prepared or logical with their carbon tax. What's the alternative?

The alternative medhead is to slow down and not introduce a dud plan that will hurt people and stifle the economy.

There's a reason Copenhagen failed - and that's because you need to take the time to get it right.

Despite what the doomsayers say, the world won't end tomorrow. And even if Australia takes a bit longer in the big picture, our global contribution to emissions is minuscule in any event.

The only worse thing than doing nothing - is rushing through a bad plan that won't make an ounce difference to the planet.

I still believe you can't have your cake and eat it too. What I mean is that to all those advocating drastic "climate action" in Australia - I'll pay more attention to you the day you acknowledge that nuclear power has to be seriously considered as an option (if you really do want to reduce emissions).

You can't just be anti-coal without a realistic base-load replacement plan.

 

[Kendall Roy]

After JuLiar's latest announcements, I'm further convinced that this is just one massive WEALTH DISTRIBUTION exercise by the loony left socialists. Anyone thinking this will help the environment is kidding themselves!

As a single chap with no kids, I feel like an enemy of the state!

The Libs direct action plan will be significantly scaled back once they're in office. Quite easy to say "need to pay the debt off first".

 

[medhead]

Loved it when staying in Kobe.Paper had articles re nuclear protests in Tokyo.Hiroshima survivors saying how they are still suffering 66 years later.And an article extolling the health benefits of the Silver water hot springs at Arima-because they contain Radium.

That's funny. As the youngest is 66 years old I dare say the affliction they are suffering is called age. (for vaguely recalled numbers but still made up because my memory is bad, I recently heard that something like 80% of Japanese atomic bomb survivors are still alive)

The problem is possibly 10-20% of the top income earners are already Neville Wran's chardonnay sippers and already have their Prius.The rest are the least sensitive to price.

But these are business people surely they recognise a chance to make money. I have underground miners extolling the financial benefits of solar panels and feed in tariffs. the only ones paying will be people like me who hasn't put in solar.

 

[dfcatch]

I have underground miners extolling the financial benefits of solar panels and feed in tariffs. the only ones paying will be people like me who hasn't put in solar.

And those in NSW who have just had their extremely generous scheme cutback.

I'm just upset I didn't get in on the solar rort whilst the going was good

 

[medhead]

The alternative medhead is to slow down and not introduce a dud plan that will hurt people and stifle the economy.

Oops my mistake, I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking what the alternative action is to take. I was asking what is the political alternative. Both political parties are proposing to have a "carbon tax".

As for base load replacement there is no need to lecture me about that. I thought my opinion on nuclear would be obvious. But again what is the alternative - both political sides refuse to consider nuclear. In fact, I think the ALP industry minister (furguson?) would be more supporting of nuclear power than any liberal MP.

And those in NSW who have just had their extremely generous scheme cutback.

I'm just upset I didn't get in on the solar rort whilst the going was good

Fortunately, there is still time in SA.

 

[dfcatch]

Oops my mistake, I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking what the alternative action is to take. I was asking what is the political alternative. Both political parties are proposing to have a "carbon tax".

As for base load replacement there is no need to lecture me about that. I thought my opinion on nuclear would be obvious. But again what is the alternative - both political sides refuse to consider nuclear. In fact, I think the ALP industry minister (furguson?) would be more supporting of nuclear power than any liberal MP.

Sorry Medhead - comment wasn't directed at you personally.

Well - IIRC Howard commissioned a report into nuclear power at some point - I don't remember what ever happened to it. But yes - the major parties won't be keen to start that debate. The debate would have to come from the "climate advocates".

As far as your first question goes - I think Abbott has left himself considerable space to move with "direct action". Direct action can pretty much consist of anything from tax rebate incentives, to direct R&D into clean technologies etc.
None of which need to be bedded down right at this moment......

But from a goverment point of view - I think there actually is a fair bit that could be done on the path to cleaner emissions. But when they are slow and fly under-the-radar - then it's difficult to claim a "win".

Especially when the debate itself is so polarised at a political level of:
Carbon Tax - vs - No Carbon Tax;

and at at debate level of:
Alarmists - vs - deniers (with the silent sensible majority in between the two).

 

[awilcockson]

I would guess 9 out of 10 households are low to middle income. The top 10% of households will have to pay and they are probably the biggest energy users per household member as well. What's wrong with encouraging them to reduce their energy use?

This whole carbon tax thing has me totally befuddled. From what I can see from the recent leaks, I'm going to be in the "top 10%" that is going to be most affected by this tax. Note that in no way do I consider myself "rich". Now in the last couple of years we have directly reduced our electricity consumption by over 30%, and yet our bills are still considerably higher than they were 2 years ago. My understanding is that this tax is going to push the price of electricity even higher. Short of sitting in the damp and cooking on a camp stove, I don't really see how I can reduce my consumption much more than we already have.

What I really don't get is how the tax is going to achieve anything if:

1. The tax is all being handed back to low-middle income earners as tax cuts, and
2. The companies subject to the tax are simply going to pass the costs on to consumers.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I just don't get how it is going to make any difference, other than to make stuff even more expensive than it is right now.

 

[medhead]

Sorry Medhead - comment wasn't directed at you personally.

Well - IIRC Howard commissioned a report into nuclear power at some point - I don't remember what ever happened to it. But yes - the major parties won't be keen to start that debate. The debate would have to come from the "climate advocates".

As far as your first question goes - I think Abbott has left himself considerable space to move with "direct action". Direct action can pretty much consist of anything from tax rebate incentives, to direct R&D into clean technologies etc.
None of which need to be bedded down right at this moment......

But from a goverment point of view - I think there actually is a fair bit that could be done on the path to cleaner emissions. But when they are slow and fly under-the-radar - then it's difficult to claim a "win".

Especially when the debate itself is so polarised at a political level of:
Carbon Tax - vs - No Carbon Tax;

and at at debate level of:
Alarmists - vs - deniers (with the silent sensible majority in between the two).

Sorry from me as well. I did realise it wasn't directed at me, I was just being a S**t.

Sounds like you mean the Switkowski report. It's a pretty good report, from a science/technology point of view, covering electricity generation options and comparing the economics. From memory nuclear compares favorably with all other forms in terms of emissions. But cost is higher. The report recommended adopting multiple energy sources, or maybe I'm remembering the summary at a couple of presentations I've attended on the findings. The key thing is that without a carbon tax nuclear cannot be cost competitive against coal. There is no financial incentive to do it. Same for solar and hence why there is feed in tariffs and such like.

So if I want to see nuclear then I should support a carbon tax because once the economics change then opinion will change IMO.

Howard's response was to say no nuclear, or perhaps we'll explore all options in the fullness of time, and to support geosequestation - something that I thing is doomed to failure, or is at least a massively expensive waste of money.

In terms of what the government is doing. I've only recently formed an opinion that this is their version of consultation after someone mentioned the lack of consultation under Rudd. This fits with my long held view that what they are saying now is potentially subject to change or even an election. Something that the "Juliar" brigade seem to miss is that this may still go to an election. If it does I hope they'll enjoy wiping the egg off their faces.