Global Warming

[Ridley]

Sorry to break it to you willo, but $100K is decent dough. We'll be slugged a couple of bucks a week in the initial period(if you're on decent dough that is), then the market will take over in magnificent capitalistic innovative tradition. There is no need to furrow the brow and feign fear and indignation, this is cool.

It's all relative Snakey. If you bought your first house in a half decent suburb in Melbourne 10 years ago $100K pa is good dough. If you bought it in the last 2-3 years it is not that good at all.

 

[Willo]

Its not good posting. And its naive or self deceptive to say so.

Get on board. Many more jobs will be created than post. You kids and grandkids will be living in a cleaner planet and might be working in a high tech industry instead of down a mine.

Sorry to break it to you willo, but $100K is decent dough. We'll be slugged a couple of bucks a week in the initial period(if you're on decent dough that is), then the market will take over in magnificent capitalistic innovative tradition. There is no need to furrow the brow and feign fear and indignation, this is cool.

If we want to clean up the planet we have 2 alternatives. 1. a global revolution. (No likelihood or desire for that to happen) or 2. fix the market failure of free polluting to allow clean energy to grow.

Bottom line: Do we want to do something to clean up the planet for future generations or don't we?

How many jobs will be created and where? In the public service?

Some people prefer to work in a mine than being a tech-head, who will work in the mines? Or is that because Bob Brown and his maniacal greens want to close all coal mines, close all coal fired power stations, stop all coal exports.
Ahem, without nuclear power stations where do we get this energy from. Bob will say solar, wind, wave, geothermal rocks etc.

With all these coal miners and their families, the support industries and reliant towns, what happens to them? Employed in alternative power industries? Where? What happens to those towns? Do all those families relocate to somewhere? Where will the money come from to build these marvels, to build them big enough to handle the demand?
Taxes will be reduced, no income tax from miners, mining companies, support industries etc.
Who foots the bill? The Feds have spent every cent they have and don't have.
Power industry? Yeah right.
We've been waiting 3 years for a 400-600 turbine wind farm ($2b) to get built up here. Guess what, they can't raise the capital. So how many of these will we need?


You don't have to apologise Snakey. I didn't say $ 100k wasn't good dough. I said its spending ability is getting whittled away (un)fairly quickly. It's not regarded as "high" income, (granted its higher than some lower incomes)

What's this "green rating" tax????

Just one of 3 new taxes. If you wish to sell or rent your house, you'll need a"green rating" to show how energy efficient your house is. And you will get energy stars. Similar to whats on fridges, stoves etc. At a cost of $750. Plus 2 other energy efficiency appraisal taxes still to be announced. Oh the joy of it all.
Why don't these dickheads just tax us all our incomes and giove us some pocket money.

Here's 4 simple questions Snakey.
1.If Julia/Bob obtain their target of reducing 160 million tonnes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020 what temperature affect will this have?
2. How will the carbon (dioxide) tax improve the economy?
3. How many new jobs (in the thousands, if not hundreds or even tens will do) do you think will be created?
Not replacements for those that are sacked from all the coal mine/power station/support industries
4. How much do you see the average householder paying in 3 years time or even 10 years time?

 

[mld]

You don't have to apologise Snakey. I didn't say $ 100k wasn't good dough. I said its spending ability is getting whittled away (un)fairly quickly. It's not regarded as "high" income, (granted its higher than some lower incomes)

In fact, it is probably higher than all lower incomes.

 

[Willo]

In fact, it is probably higher than all lower incomes.

I didn't word that too well. :hihi

 

[evo]

How many jobs will be created and where? In the public service?

It's certainly going to be a bureaucrats wet dream.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

What's this "green rating" tax????

Contrary to the posts above the only info I could find was an incentive scheme for commercial buildings, not a punitive tax on residential homes.

Quote from Here
"The Tax Breaks for Green Buildings initiative will be available for retrofits of existing commercial buildings. It will also be available for retrofits of office buildings, hotels and shopping centres that are currently covered by the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) scheme.
The Tax Break will be available for eligible capital expenditure which is incurred as part of a qualifying retrofit of an existing commercial building. The scope of what can constitute eligible capital expenditure will be determined in consultation with environmental, industry and government stakeholders."

 

[tigersnake]

How many jobs will be created and where? In the public service?

Some people prefer to work in a mine than being a tech-head, who will work in the mines? Or is that because Bob Brown and his maniacal greens want to close all coal mines, close all coal fired power stations, stop all coal exports.
Ahem, without nuclear power stations where do we get this energy from. Bob will say solar, wind, wave, geothermal rocks etc.

With all these coal miners and their families, the support industries and reliant towns, what happens to them? Employed in alternative power industries? Where? What happens to those towns? Do all those families relocate to somewhere? Where will the money come from to build these marvels, to build them big enough to handle the demand?
Taxes will be reduced, no income tax from miners, mining companies, support industries etc.
Who foots the bill? The Feds have spent every cent they have and don't have.
Power industry? Yeah right.
We've been waiting 3 years for a 400-600 turbine wind farm ($2b) to get built up here. Guess what, they can't raise the capital. So how many of these will we need?


You don't have to apologise Snakey. I didn't say $ 100k wasn't good dough. I said its spending ability is getting whittled away (un)fairly quickly. It's not regarded as "high" income, (granted its higher than some lower incomes)

Just one of 3 new taxes. If you wish to sell or rent your house, you'll need a"green rating" to show how energy efficient your house is. And you will get energy stars. Similar to whats on fridges, stoves etc. At a cost of $750. Plus 2 other energy efficiency appraisal taxes still to be announced. Oh the joy of it all.
Why don't these *smile*s just tax us all our incomes and giove us some pocket money.

Here's 4 simple questions Snakey.
1.If Julia/Bob obtain their target of reducing 160 million tonnes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020 what temperature affect will this have?
2. How will the carbon (dioxide) tax improve the economy?
3. How many new jobs (in the thousands, if not hundreds or even tens will do) do you think will be created?
Not replacements for those that are sacked from all the coal mine/power station/support industries
4. How much do you see the average householder paying in 3 years time or even 10 years time?

On your first point re miners losing jobs, yep, it will happen. Mines open and close every day in Australia depending on market conditions. This is a market condition. More importantly, its an economic reform. To get scared because some people may lose jobs is like, as I've already said, its like getting scared that horse dealers and blacksmiths would lose their jobs when the Model T ford took off, like getting upset that radio announcers would lose their jobs when TV took off.. I used to be a printer, computers killed 2 trades in the time I was in the industry, 2 complete trades. (compositers and graphic repos). Nobody cried, things change, things move, technology changes, market demand changes.

Treasury economic modelling says, and its your right to reject it buts its usually at least half right, usually in the ball park, that thousands of jobs will be created in the finance industry, the power industry. The net gain is quite big, can't remember how much but in the thousands pa.

In answer to your 4 questions:

1. Not much in the short term, here is the thing, here is the big test of character: Do we collectively have the ability or consideration to think and or care about the long term? This is a long term thing willo. The global capitalist economy is a monster juggernaut to change. In the short term, that is the next 20 years, its about putting the brakes on carbon RISING, which in turn will slowly slow down climate change, for political and logistical reasons that i the best we can hope for, but it is a huge outcome.

The reform in and of itself is pretty small, the big thing is the shift in thinking. By the violent reaction against a pretty peicmeal policy it makes me think most people really don't give a stuff about the long term, but we'll see.

2. In lots of ways. At the broad long term level, it will slow down or stop climate change. This has all sorts of implications I'm sure I don't need to go into, heaps, shiploads. The tourism industry for example, the GBR won't die, agriculture, we will hopefully be able to grow stuff in the future. At the more direct shorter term level, the reform will foster research and dev, into clean energy, clean cars, low energy building and architectire, lower energy appliances, heaps. AND, the whole scaremongering 'sob sob the rest of the world isn't doing anything' is actually a good thing well they are doing something, but we'll be moving with the trend, at the pointy end, that will be a good thing.

3. see 2

4. Not much. The market mechanisms will ensure our houses, cars, appliances are more energy efficient. I'm guessing it may, may cost us 5-10 bucks a week, but that will be offset by other benefits. It may cost nothing when it evens out, but not much

 

[KnightersRevenge]

w

On your first point re miners losing jobs, yep, it will happen. Minesopen and close every day in Australia depending on market conditions. This is a market condition. More importantly, its an economic reform. To get scared because some people may lose jobs is like, as I've already said, its like getting scared that horse dealers and blacksmiths would lose their jobs when the Model T ford took off, like getting upset that radio announcers would lose their jobs when TV took off.. I used to be a printer, computers killed 2 trades in the time I was in the industry, 2 complete trades. (compositers and graphic repos). Nobody cried, things change, things move, technology changes, market demand changes.

Treasury economic modelling says, and its your right to reject it buts its usually at least half right, usually in the ball park, that thousands of jobs will be created in the finance industry, the power industry. The net gain is quite big, can't remember how much but in the thousands pa.

In answer to your 4 questions:

1. Not much in the short term, here is the thing, here is the big test of character: Do we collectively have the ability or consideration to think and or care about the long term? This is a long term thing willo. The global capitalist economy is a monster juggernaut to change. In the short term, that is the next 20 years, its about putting the brakes on carbon RISING, which in turn will slowly slow down climate change, for political and logistical reasons that i the best we can hope for, but it is a huge outcome.

The reform in and of itself is pretty small, the big thing is the shift in thinking. By the violent reaction against a pretty peicmeal policy it makes me think most people really don't give a stuff about the long term, but we'll see.

2. In lots of ways. At the broad long term level, it will slow down or stop climate change. This has all sorts of implications I'm sure I don't need to go into, heaps, shiploads. The tourism industry for example, the GBR won't die, agriculture, we will hopefully be able to grow stuff in the future. At the more direct shorter term level, the reform will foster research and dev, into clean energy, clean cars, low energy building and architectire, lower energy appliances, heaps. AND, the whole scaremongering 'sob sob the rest of the world isn't doing anything' is actually a good thing well they are doing something, but we'll be moving with the trend, at the pointy end, that will be a good thing.

3. see 2

4. Not much. The market mechanisms will ensure our houses, cars, appliances are more energy efficient. I'm guessing it may, may cost us 5-10 bucks a week, but that will be offset by other benefits. It may cost nothing when it evens out, but not much

This is the story that I'm not hearing often enough in the media. Newspapers and TV love to show me Abbott making a creepy fool of himself, god he makes my skin crawl, but while they are happy to editorialise on the (probably ficticious) negatives the positive story is only being put out there by Labor (badly) or academics. Why is that?

 

[mld]

Wait a second there Knighter, I don’t think it is the role of media to sell government policy. Appropriate criticism and scrutiny should be expected, and in general the reporting of the policy hasn’t been overly critical from what I have seen.

Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider the policy to be a market mechanism for addressing emissions. It relies far too heavily on the creation of additional bureaucracies, redistribution of wealth and the sort of Abbott-style direct action that was ripped to shreds by the recent Productivity Commission report. Whilst the tax should help drive efficiencies, compensation to the competitors of renewable technologies means the potential competitive advantage of more costly renewable technologies is dulled. A market mechanism should have a minimum of government intervention.

On the other hand, taking the opportunity to remove the low income tax offset and increase the tax-free threshold is quality policy. Simplifying the tax system and removing the need of people who don’t pay tax to file tax returns is a rare reform.

In the end though, we won’t be able to make the sort of judgements on the tax that are being made, until it is in place. We need to hold our horses and judge it on three things: 1) how costly it is in practice to the taxpayer; 2) what the impact is on the economy, in practice rather than modelled, including inevitable unintended consequences; and 3) How much emissions are reduced by. Until we have that evidence, it is all just conflicting opinions.

 

[evo]

Simplifying the tax system and removing the need of people who don’t pay tax to file tax returns is a rare reform.

Definitely.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Wait a second there Knighter, I don’t think it is the role of media to sell government policy. Appropriate criticism and scrutiny should be expected, and in general the reporting of the policy hasn’t been overly critical from what I have seen.

That swings both ways, it may not be their "job" to sell govt. policy but they to seem to be lapping up Abbott's negativity. I'm just not hearing the other voice in the popular media is what I was saying. Plenty of scientists and economists but these are hardly the voices that the mainsteam population hear. And many distrust the ABC. The radio shock jocks of Melbourne, Sydney and Perth dominate the landscape and help Abbott to dominate the news cycle.

 

[mld]

That swings both ways, it may not be their "job" to sell govt. policy but they to seem to be lapping up Abbott's negativity. I'm just not hearing the other voice in the popular media is what I was saying. Plenty of scientists and economists but these are hardly the voices that the mainsteam population hear. And many distrust the ABC. The radio shock jocks of Melbourne, Sydney and Perth dominate the landscape and help Abbott to dominate the news cycle.

In terms of popular media, it is popular because it gives its audience what its audience wants to hear. I imagine if it ceased doing this, it would cease to be the popular media. The thing is though, shock jocks by their very nature are ever only preaching to the choir, their influence on changing minds is minimal.

 

[evo]

The thing is though, shock jocks by their very nature are ever only preaching to the choir, their influence on changing minds is minimal.

that's right.

BTW, pro AGW stories get a fair bit of traction in the Fairfax newspapers. Rosy posted an example on the previous page.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

In terms of popular media, it is popular because it gives its audience what its audience wants to hear. I imagine if it ceased doing this, it would cease to be the popular media. The thing is though, shock jocks by their very nature are ever only preaching to the choir, their influence on changing minds is minimal.

Too true. But it isn't representative of the view of people in the circles in which I turn (middle class circles). It doesn't paint a true picture and the PM is fighting an uphill battle to be even heard, that is huge impost on a sitting PM. Part of that is her own problem. The opposition is in control of the language on many issues ("carbon tax", "stop the boats", "border security") and as long as you allow your opponent to control the language you can't win IMO. The Labor party have failed to steal back the headlines and lead the debate. Without something that they can use to really turn the public off Tony they are in trouble (perhaps a photo opp with "Lord" Monkton killing an endagered tropical fish with motor oil on the Great Barrier Reef?)

 

[Total Tiger]

Too true. But it isn't representative of the view of people in the circles in which I turn (middle class circles). It doesn't paint a true picture and the PM is fighting an uphill battle to be even heard, that is huge impost on a sitting PM. Part of that is her own problem. The opposition is in control of the language on many issues ("carbon tax", "stop the boats", "border security") and as long as you allow your opponent to control the language you can't win IMO. The Labor party have failed to steal back the headlines and lead the debate. Without something that they can use to really turn the public off Tony they are in trouble (perhaps a photo opp with "Lord" Monkton killing an endagered tropical fish with motor oil on the Great Barrier Reef?)

They are in trouble anyway. They have treated the electorate with disdain and the electorate will punish them for it. I think if they ditched the whole carbox tax tomorrow, they would still lose the next election.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

They are in trouble anyway. They have treated the electorate with disdain and the electorate will punish them for it. I think if they ditched the whole carbox tax tomorrow, they would still lose the next election.

In what way?

 

[Total Tiger]

In what way?

By not taking the carbon tax to an election. Forget whether you are pro or anti the carbon tax. The electorate should be voting on it given that it is a major change in our taxation system and not giving the electorate that opportunity is treating it with disdain. The ALP will pay for that at the next election and there must be some very nervous back benchers in marginal seats in the ALP at the moment and mightily pissed off ones if they haven't served their minimum time for the superannuation cash cow.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

By not taking the carbon tax to an election. Forget whether you are pro or anti the carbon tax. The electorate should be voting on it given that it is a major change in our taxation system and not giving the electorate that opportunity is treating it with disdain. The ALP will pay for that at the next election and there must be some very nervous back benchers in marginal seats in the ALP at the moment and mightily p!ssed off ones if they haven't served their minimum time for the superannuation cash cow.

That is not how our system works. If a party is able to form a government then they run country until the next election. That is the sytem we have. The very loud voices of conservative radio hacks and the Murdoch press do not represent the majority, in my experience. John Howard gambled and won on the GST, just. Without the Democrats and Brian Harradine, it doesn't get up (sound familiar). It was hardly a smashing success, and with just a slim majority in the lower house he still called it a mandate and implimented it. What's good for the goose......

 

[lukeanddad]

That is not how our system works. If a party is able to form a government then they run country until the next election. That is the sytem we have. The very loud voices of conservative radio hacks and the Murdoch press do not represent the majority, in my experience. John Howard gambled and won on the GST, just. Without the Democrats and Brian Harradine, it doesn't get up (sound familiar). It was hardly a smashing success, and with just a slim majority in the lower house he still called it a mandate and implimented it. What's good for the goose......

Not sure how you can make this statement. The term 'mandate' is often used in the context of governments pursuing policy that was foreshadowed in the campaign. It is fair to say Howard can claim a mandate for GST, while Gillard cannot for Carbon. Howard got in by the skin of his teeth on the GST election. But he was still able to claim the mandate.

 

[ssstone]

That is not how our system works. If a party is able to form a government then they run country until the next election. That is the sytem we have. The very loud voices of conservative radio hacks and the Murdoch press do not represent the majority, in my experience. John Howard gambled and won on the GST, just. Without the Democrats and Brian Harradine, it doesn't get up (sound familiar). It was hardly a smashing success, and with just a slim majority in the lower house he still called it a mandate and implimented it. What's good for the goose......

kr a few points
1 bob not the bogan princess is running the country
2the majority of all polls even the so even balanced fairfax smear sheet would be a fair account of the majority not your experiences
3 howard took it to the vote and won,end of story
4get up hey? you sure you arent simon shriek?