Global Warming

[lamb22]

Agree it's a massive issue, not sure how successful, on both an environmental & financial level, the desalination plant will be

Personally, I don't understand why there wasn't a big push to extend existing storage reservoirs/dams during the recent dry periods, nor do I see a reason not to have water restrictions made permanent

Yeah, we're paying now for treating water as if it were inexhaustible. Desalination plants are a very expensive and energy intense solution. Getting people to agree to use recycled water is an option but - if we better store and protect our water reserves it would be a start.

 

[Merveille]

There are 150 members of the house. You should take up your beef with the 72 coalition members who are effectively on strke taking their ball and bat home and putting cheap self interest before our interest. If they actually turned up for work and did something constructive labor wouldn't have to deal with the cross benches.

They are however in the main lazy, dim, economically illiterate purveyors of three word slogans and racist dog whistles.

There would be no possibility of a carbon tax if Abbott had not renegged on a deal the libs had reached with labor. But that's par for the course for a serial renegger who also renegged on a deal he signed with labor and the inependants on the new parliament.

I suppose you are OK with Abbott's four positions on climate change in the last 4 years . In 2007 he for for an ETS, in 2008 climate change was absolute crap, in 2009 he advocated a carbon tax and now he wants a 10.8 billion tax on US to give to polluters,

Totally inept and unfit for leadership. We can thank our lucky stars we lodged a massive bullet in August last year and ended up with a real leader who makes decisions in the national interest and then backs herself to the hit.

Get used to it, we will be fortunate to have Julia as PM for another 900 days at least - god bless our deliberately barren, godless female, boat person PM

You have to be taking the p1ss , surely. She is dead in the water lol

 

[Brodders17]

can someone confirm i have this right,

one party wants to tax the polluters and give the money back to the people
the other party wants to use peoples taxes to give money to the polluters?

in simple terms does that seem to be right?

 

[mld]

can someone confirm i have this right,

one party wants to tax the polluters and give the money back to the people
the other party wants to use peoples taxes to give money to the polluters?

in simple terms does that seem to be right?

No. I'll summarise, with as little value judgement as possible:

There isn't any specifics on Labor's carbon tax yet, but the intention is to increase the costs of energy production that causes carbon emissions, most likely including petrol. Proceeds of the tax will be given as compensation to low income earners and polluters, with some also spent on protecting exposed industries from imports.

The coalition's direct action policy is about paying polluters to reduce pollution, for example paying for the shut-down of a coal-powered plant, or the change to a gas-fired plant. It also involves funding things like biosequestration.

Personally I don't like that the coalition's plan is so heavily reliant on picking winners. It is a mistake however to simply believe Labor's policy involves taking money from polluters and giving it to the people. It involves increasing prices of anything that requires energy to produce or transport, and compensating the least-able to cope with those price increases.

 

[Streak]

Personally I don't like that the coalition's plan is so heavily reliant on picking winners. It is a mistake however to simply believe Labor's policy involves taking money from polluters and giving it to the people. It involves increasing prices of anything that requires energy to produce or transport, and compensating the least-able to cope with those price increases.

But the more carbon produced, the more the tax, so in effect the idea is to drive market forces to favour the more carbon efficient process.

What I really don't get is this. I'd have thought the Liberals would have heavily favoured a system that uses market forces to achieve an outcome, and Labour would have favoured a compensation based system for polluters that effectively protects jobs.

It seems all arse about right at the moment.

 

[mld]

But the more carbon produced, the more the tax, so in effect the idea is to drive market forces to favour the more carbon efficient process.

However, if the tax does its job, the move to more expensive but less carbon-intensive power generation will lead to the tax take decreasing, whilst the need for compensation to low income earners and protection for industry will remain.

 

[lamb22]

can someone confirm i have this right,

one party wants to tax the polluters and give the money back to the people
the other party wants to use peoples taxes to give money to the polluters?

in simple terms does that seem to be right?

You are right Brodders. Yet the GBNT whingers seem to prefer option 2.

Coalition scheme is about 3 -4 billion a year.

Plus the colation scheme will be rorted like the regional grants rorts under Howard. Uneconomic enterprises who were likely to lose money or go bust and close down plants would simply put put their hands for mpey to close it down and there would be no impediment to them starting up another high emitting enterprise as ther would be no proce penalty - utterly stupid idea as Malcolm Turnbull has pointed out - talk about ineffective and wasteful programs.

At $10 per tonne carbon emission price labour scheme would raise about $6 billion most of it will go back into compensation. At $25 per tonne cost to polluters around $15 billion with again most coming back to households. As the per head emission in Oz is 27 tonnes per year and working off an average 4 person household if a 'standard 'family got back 60% of monies raised they'd be looking at about $1500 per year compensation. I'd pay that bi annually in advance in nice envelopes with crisp RBA cheques in the amount of $750.00

Of course one would assume a drop in emissions with a price signal in place.

 

[mld]

Money for nothing, wow! Why stop at $25 a tonne, if we put it high enough we may never need to work again.

 

[lamb22]

Money for nothing, wow! Why stop at $25 a tonne, if we put it high enough we may never need to work again.

Its not money for nothing MLD = prices will go up, but probably not by the increase in the tax impost, especially if competing energy efficienct industries are around.

Compensation will likely be framed so that low income earners get slightly more than they lose, those up to 120k break about even and above that they will lose out.

Gina, Twiggy, the yank running Rio and the South African running BHP, Clive and eeny weeny Tinkler will ne upset.

 

[mld]

Don't get me wrong, I actually think a carbon tax is the more effective way to put a price on carbon emissions, compared to an ETS or the coalition's direct action policy. I simply think it is important to not over-sell it, especially when no numbers have been released yet.

Also, when the tax does its job and collects less revenue as emissions drop, energy will still cost more. Do we cut compensation, or fund it out of the budget?

 

[Brodders17]

No. I'll summarise, with as little value judgement as possible:

There isn't any specifics on Labor's carbon tax yet, but the intention is to increase the costs of energy production that causes carbon emissions, most likely including petrol. Proceeds of the tax will be given as compensation to low income earners and polluters, with some also spent on protecting exposed industries from imports.

so labour will tax the polluters, and give some of that money back to needy taxpayers?

The coalition's direct action policy is about paying polluters to reduce pollution, for example paying for the shut-down of a coal-powered plant, or the change to a gas-fired plant. It also involves funding things like biosequestration.

Personally I don't like that the coalition's plan is so heavily reliant on picking winners. It is a mistake however to simply believe Labor's policy involves taking money from polluters and giving it to the people. It involves increasing prices of anything that requires energy to produce or transport, and compensating the least-able to cope with those price increases.

and the libs will give taxpayers money to polluters to not pollute as badly?

 

[Merveille]

so labour will tax the polluters, and give some of that money back to needy taxpayers?

and the libs will give taxpayers money to polluters to not pollute as badly?

Is this TAx about stopping the Earth's unnatural warming, by reducing co2 emissions, or is about reducing pollution? What is real here?

This tax is supposed to be about Climate Change/global Warming - therefore directly co2, which is actually not a pollution.
How does it work? By changing people's behaviour. How? by stinging them in the pocket - electricity price increases will increase the price of everything. Will people drive less however? BArely, and there is going to be lots more people. Will people turn off air conditioners? Some..

Will people's standard of living drop? Yes - it has to, otherwise what is the point? If people are compensated and their behaviour does not change, then there is no impact. So behaviours will change. I feel sorry for the kids whose parents will no longer drive them to school, or put on an air conditioner, or tell em off for turning on a light. What a joke this will be become, if it wasn't so serious. Add to all this India and China's growth, China building 3 coal fire power stations a month, or something ridiculous like that, and our industries moving off shore, wow there is a lot to be excited about in this great Country - not..
And we still sell all that dirty earth over seas..to be burnt up..
The middle and rich will pay the big money go around, the earth's climate won't change ONE IOTA as a result of anything we do as a result of this tax.
Government gets to control the money, their happy. Turnbull makes millions more through Golman Sachs, he's happy.

On top all this - Combet recently purchased a beach-side pad lol

 

[Freezer]

... the earth's climate won't change ONE IOTA as a result of anything we do as a result of this tax.

I simply don't believe that. This carbon tax that all you "Aussies" are gonna pay is gonna save the world for me and all of us here in the UK.

I knew there was a reason I came here 15 years ago!

Thanks to all of you in advance. :clap

*smile* know-it-all politicians - stop telling us what's best for everyone. They're the same the world over. Prats all of them.

 

[lamb22]

Is this TAx about stopping the Earth's unnatural warming, by reducing co2 emissions, or is about reducing pollution? What is real here?

This tax is supposed to be about Climate Change/global Warming - therefore directly co2, which is actually not a pollution.
How does it work? By changing people's behaviour. How? by stinging them in the pocket - electricity price increases will increase the price of everything. Will people drive less however? BArely, and there is going to be lots more people. Will people turn off air conditioners? Some..

Will people's standard of living drop? Yes - it has to, otherwise what is the point? If people are compensated and their behaviour does not change, then there is no impact. So behaviours will change. I feel sorry for the kids whose parents will no longer drive them to school, or put on an air conditioner, or tell em off for turning on a light. What a joke this will be become, if it wasn't so serious. Add to all this India and China's growth, China building 3 coal fire power stations a month, or something ridiculous like that, and our industries moving off shore, wow there is a lot to be excited about in this great Country - not..
And we still sell all that dirty earth over seas..to be burnt up..
The middle and rich will pay the big money go around, the earth's climate won't change ONE IOTA as a result of anything we do as a result of this tax.
Government gets to control the money, their happy. Turnbull makes millions more through Golman Sachs, he's happy.

On top all this - Combet recently purchased a beach-side pad lol

Your post gave me a chuckle Merveille. I could see all the lib and murdoch talking points being regurgitated but you struggled when you had to use your own examples highlighted in yellow. Assuming what you say happens it actually means our kids will become fitter and more independant making their way to schools, tougher and healthier because they will deal more with a nutural environment rather than an artificial one (air conditioners) and more responsible because they will not waste noney or non renewable resources (turning off lights)

It really gave me an insight into the world of Alan Jones where callers ring in and its all too hard, everyone has a better life than they do - why doesn't teh government look after them and send someone to wipe their bottoms like they do for asylum seekers. That element of Australia have forgotten about decency, independance, hard work, generosity and of course reason.

And when the world falls apart beacuse our kids become, healthier fitter, smarter, tougher, more responsible and wealthier like your examples show illustrates how divorced from reality some of us have become.

BTW here's the cost of the alternative scheme:

UPDATE 8.57am: AUSTRALIAN households would be poorer by an average of $720 a year under the coalition's direct action plan, Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says.

The Federal Government has released figures it says show the Opposition's direct action plan to tackle climate change would cost nearly 200 per cent, or $19.5 billion, more than originally claimed.

"The new figures demonstrate that direct action is so environmentally ineffective that it will deliver only 25 per cent of carbon pollution abatement required for the Coalition to meet the bipartisan target of minus five per cent (by 2020)," Mr Combet said.

"This means that the Coalition would need to purchase 75 per cent of the required abatement from international permits at a cost of over $20 billion - which currently has no funding allocated."

The cost of the Opposition's plan would eventually leave a $30 billion Budget shortfall by 2020, Mr Combet said.

The Coalition's policy would result in taxpayers paying to cut pollution rather than polluters forking out, the Climate Change Minister said.

There would be no investment certainty for industry and households would receive no assistance for increased living costs.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/brotherhood-favours-carbon-tax/story-e6frf7l6-1226014380311

 

[Giardiasis]

Lamb, you seem to know what's best for everyone. A sure sign you have no clue.

"And when the world falls apart beacuse our kids become, healthier fitter, smarter, tougher, more responsible and wealthier like your examples show illustrates how divorced from reality some of us have become." You are not basing these outcomes on evidence, but on what Thomas Sowell would call, "The Vision of the Anointed". Oh holy one, you might not see the incredible irony and hubris in your thoughts, but for those of us dumb enough to see through your nonsense we will fight so that people with power that think like you can't impose there/your will on other people's freedom.

 

[lamb22]

Lamb, you seem to know what's best for everyone. A sure sign you have no clue.

"And when the world falls apart beacuse our kids become, healthier fitter, smarter, tougher, more responsible and wealthier like your examples show illustrates how divorced from reality some of us have become." You are not basing these outcomes on evidence, but on what Thomas Sowell would call, "The Vision of the Anointed". Oh holy one, you might not see the incredible irony and hubris in your thoughts, but for those of us dumb enough to see through your nonsense we will fight so that people with power that think like you can't impose there/your will on other people's freedom.

Your post stands on its own without comment.

However as you appear to be a lib booster, why is it that you oppose a market mechanism that labor propose but you instead support a tax and spend - picking winners approach suggested by the libs which both economists and scientists say is less effective to the alternative and which will cost taxpayers more money (and...shock horror... will also negatively affect the budget bottom line).

Why should we pay more taxes as advocated by the libs?

Why are you opposing the market based budget neutral policy?

 

[Giardiasis]

I don't support spending any money with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.

 

[lamb22]

I don't support spending any money with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely) its a two party system - your real life choices are Abbott's tax payer hit or Gillard's market based budget neutral scheme.

Why dont you show your true colours and tell us why you'll vote liberal even though they propose the tax and spend option.

 

[Total Tiger]

BTW here's the cost of the alternative scheme:

UPDATE 8.57am: AUSTRALIAN households would be poorer by an average of $720 a year under the coalition's direct action plan, Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says.

The Federal Government has released figures it says show the Opposition's direct action plan to tackle climate change would cost nearly 200 per cent, or $19.5 billion, more than originally claimed.

"The new figures demonstrate that direct action is so environmentally ineffective that it will deliver only 25 per cent of carbon pollution abatement required for the Coalition to meet the bipartisan target of minus five per cent (by 2020)," Mr Combet said.

"This means that the Coalition would need to purchase 75 per cent of the required abatement from international permits at a cost of over $20 billion - which currently has no funding allocated."

The cost of the Opposition's plan would eventually leave a $30 billion Budget shortfall by 2020, Mr Combet said.

The Coalition's policy would result in taxpayers paying to cut pollution rather than polluters forking out, the Climate Change Minister said.

There would be no investment certainty for industry and households would receive no assistance for increased living costs.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/brotherhood-favours-carbon-tax/story-e6frf7l6-1226014380311

Lamby, first you referenced the AWU for a view on some Howard policy and now you quote Greg Combet for a costing analysis on a Liberal policy. Any fear of referencing something impartial?

 

[lamb22]

I don't support spending any money with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.

I suppose you'll be attending some of the tax revolt rallies then.

Let me suggest some placards for you.

"I like hot weather" and "I like ocean views"