lamb22 said:I dont think you get it MLD. You are arguing against what you see is a partisan streotype and it makes your comments so predicatable.
First who funds IPA is important because thir role is to further the interest of their sponsors. In effect they dont exist if they act contrary to their sponsrs interests, I wouldn't even say they had a conflict of interest because that would imply they had an interest apart from being a PR advocate for the people who fund them. The IPA basically run a static campaign against anything that affects big mining interests.
2. Just using two recent disasters the Gulf of Mexico spill and the GFC both had the primary feature that regulations were relaxed and even the relaxed regulations were not enforced.
Your flippant comments betray your partisanship.
3. I am not partisan but policy focussed.
I was the one that posted arguments from carbon tax advocates pointing out percieved issues with the ETS. To the extent such issues are fact based they need to be addressed.
4. The scheme will start next year with a fixed price permit system. Time for talk is over. Time for prevarication is over. I'd imagine that if world practice by 2017 shows some way as to whether fixing price or fixing quantity of pollution is more effective the Gillard/Combet/Bandt/Gaddafi govt will take the appropriate action.
mld said:Politcally, I think petrol is going to be the killer in this scheme. The Greens have already put it out there that they want petrol taxed, and they won't accept a cut in excise as compensation.
Just imagine - all those Western Sydney swing-seat voters, stuck in traffic every day watching their fuel gauges whilst listening to Alan telling them how much extra the carbon tax on fuel is costing them. It's enough to make Mark Arbib cry!
mld said:Not really arguing anything, just throwing some opinions out there.
So in other words, you suggest you can ignore the content of what they write, based on who funds them. That is pretty much the definition of ad hominem.
Firstly, I didn't realise the Gulf of Mexico spill was a complex financial instrument, I thought it was oil. Secondly, the GFC was based in large part because of government interference in the housing loan sector, which resulted in banks lending money to people who couldn’t afford it.
A poorly regulated financial sector packaging these toxic loans brought about the GFC hand-in-glove with reckless government intervention. An ETS will involve a pseudo market of complex financial instruments with government involvement...
Aww, don’t be like that. My flippant comments are more due to my not having a great emotional investment in this topic.
You call TT partisan, you call me partisan. It seems partisan is defined as 'does not take lamb22's spin as the gospel truth'.
Hehe. I'm not, you are!
I guess to some it is more important who is raising problems, than what the problems are.
It will certainly be fascinating to watch. Climate change makes for entertaining politics.
lamb22 said:I reckon this guy's closer to the truth about the causes of the GFC
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1
mld said:You call TT partisan, you call me partisan. It seems partisan is defined as 'does not take lamb22's spin as the gospel truth'.
billyb#40 said:...offset the inevitable sea rise, storm and severe weather impacts on the Aussie community.
Freezer said:Inevitable...? ? ?
lamb22 said:Yes obviously inevitable as its already happenning.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
craig said:Carbon Tax is BS and p!ssin in to the wind stuff.
Australia the only country to do it, when China, India, Japan, and the USA the biggest economies and polluters wont have a bar of it.
Comrade Jooliar and her socialist commie cretin monkeys will nail export industry and jobs in this country to the wall, well that is whatever export industry we have left.
Even if Australia becamer Carbon FREE tomorrow it would make no difference to the world anyway.
Everycountry has to do it, and i can bet London to a brick the developing economies arent gonna touch carbon off setting and taxing.
More contrived BS.
Freezer said:Inevitable...? ? ?
lamb22 said:Re China
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=2147
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1806070/reports-china-impose-carbon-tax-2012
India
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/india-to-raise-535-million-from-carbon-tax-on-coal.html
USA
http://www.rggi.org/home