Carbon Price announced today

Ok Gino, against my better judgment how about this?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-turn-on-clean-energy-carbon-tax-support.html

Where Lomborg, one of the poster children of the "do nothing about climate change" movement says that although a carbon tax isn't going to solve climate change by itself, could fund the solution and suggests a small carbon tax could be part of the solution.

 

wow this thread has brought out some character flaws...i mean characters

 

Sure about that price? Seems way cheap.

 

A carbon tax is a tax on carbon. If they are talking about reducing CO2 emissions dont forget there are 2 oxygen atoms locked up in that molecule and are removed as well. The biosphere does not take sides in a financial debate.

To expect the factory processes that fuel the world economy to stop chugging along and or at least slow down is asking for a recession from a globalists point of view. Tax the people and filter and funnel it to us because we wont stop what we are doing unless we are stopped or forced to change.

 

Why can't you see that we NEED this tax. If we don't have this tax then the planet will EXPLODE! The SCIENCE shows that Al Gore is right and the debate (DON'T ask when he ever allowed a debate) is OVER.
You people who don't want to have the tax are WHINGERS! If you don't want to give the IMF your money then you are a TERRORIST and should be dealt with accordingly. Individuals are irrelevant, LONG LIVE THE STATE!

 

"Bjoern Lomborg, the Danish social scientist"

I don't know what to say, Dwayne. Your condescension is insulting on its own, but serving up this as support for a new TAX on CO2 is just ridiculous. The guy even admits he is guessing. So I should be happy to pay a tax because a danish social "scientist" isn't sure about anything? You may as well say, "Because Dr. Bob and Nurse Julia say its is good for you and it won't hurt a bit, didums."

 

Well, I'm sorry but we don't have a second earth to allow a double-blind study and be absolutely sure so anything is going to be some kind of educated guess isn't it. Why don't you tell me who you would accept statements of support from then? An economist? Ha ha ha, they've been incredibly useful of late...

 

I'm not disputing the verasity, or not, of anthropomorphic global warming, nor the failure, or not, of economics, but the supposed necessity for introducing a CO2 emissions tax.

If your argument for fooling around with the lives of Australians with a new TAX does, in fact, come down to the relative merrits of peoples opinions and guesses, then I rest my case. For the opinions and guesses of different individuals will be full of their individual biases and will not be based on objective fact. "Talking their book" is the expression I believe.

In which case, the answer to your question of "who would I accept statements from" for putting their hand into my pocket in those circumstances?, is no one, of course. Least of all a government needing to raise revenue, telling me their failed policies were my fault and I need to be punished for their failure and pay for newer, greener policies, with blatant hypocrisy of continuing to expand its export of pollution generating resources (did you read in the Age how Victoria is in negotiations for expanding exports of its brown coal?).

I've spelt it out multiple times. It stinks, pure and simple. And I stand with all those who oppose it.

 

People should confront the truth of themselves on occasion, however, I acknowledge nobody is perfect. Consider the cranium retracted.

 

Everything that is ever done, by government or otherwise basically comes down to "the relative merits of people's opinions and guesses", unless you're aware of some method of being able to predict the future in some foolproof way.

And I mentioned Lomborg because I seem to remember somebody else quoting him on the other side of the argument earlier in this thread.

Like I said, I'm going to wait and see the detail before I go all "the sky is falling".

Edit: You demanded earlier to see unequivocable proof why your rights as an individual should be impinged... that of course does not exist as it's a philosophical issue rather than a provable statement, however see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

I just had a massive yelling argument with my mum over the carbon tax what it comes down to with her is that" we have to do something" which i think a few of you seem to agree with. You think we have to do something, will a tax reduce pollution? Probably not but at least you can say you tried.

Personally i don't think that is a good enough excuse to threaten a fragile economy.

 

You know, I don't think your position is unreasonable and can certainly see and respect your point of view even if I don't share it completely. A carbon tax isn't going to solve the problem - I don't think any one thing is. It would require concerted effort by a large proportion of the world and a lot of the time I'm pessimistic that will eventuate, however what is the alternative? I'd rather have a chance of success than guaranteed failure.

 

If the best and most innovative solution that a government can come up with to reduce pollution is a tax then that government is utterly inept. there are so many ways to bring the nation into a clean renewable future, using science and education and ingenuity, but the dinosaurs in the labour party are so dense and prehistoric the only "solution" that they can see is an ineffectual, economically stupid method, ie: a tax.

Dumb stupid prehistoric politicians that see everything in terms of "If we don't want you to do it, then we will tax more it so that you can't afford it".

They wanted to carve a statue of Gillard, but they couldn't find a plank that was thick enough.

 

That much we can agree on at least - the government is utterly inept.

 

Pro tip from a mate of mine (who is both a licensed electrician and the owner-builder of a home solar array): buy two 1500w off-the-shelf kits for $3000 each and run them in parallel.

The manufacturing processes for solar panels are in some ways quite similar to LCD manufacturing in that it's very easy and cheap to make lots of small ones but quite difficult and expensive to make a few big ones. The big systems you see for sale use big panels and are more expensive per square meter so you can just use smaller ones and make up the difference in volume. It does involve a bit more stuffing around with the inverters but DIY always involves a certain amount of stuffing around if your main concern is money rather than convenience.

 

So how is the old age pensioner supposed to arrange this? The 3kw systems I've seen are $12K or there abouts. If this is the case, why isnt anybody marketing $6k gerry rigged solutions. Are all your numbers obtained using methods like this?



In anycase, it looks like the normal people making thier own judgement.

 

Dead right Jonesy. Doesn't make the least bit of common sense. Rangas argument to tax the people indirectly then give the tax back to the people is ridiculous. Imagine the wasted FIAT on administering such a flimsy system. Bureaucracy gone mental. Of course this is all because of the pre-election promises she made to the Greens. Think her days as PM are numbered. Inner factions will make a meal of her & stick Buddy Ruddy back in the drivers seat.

 

Hardly. You, me and the old age pensioners can research the topic for ourselves. You can look at your own electricity bill and work out your usage. You can look at the rated output of LEDs in the hardware store or from online suppliers. You can use Google to find an electrician in your area if you don't already have a friend on Facebook who is an electrician (is anyone here an electrician BTW?). You can spend 12 seconds typing "solar panel" into eBay like I just did and find 2.5KW worth (not including inverters) for less that $6000.

Besides, is citing a primary source (i.e. someone I know personally who actually has one of these things on his roof) a bad thing in this context? Did you know it was possible to do this before I mentioned it?

More importantly, did you look any further into this subject beyond listening to Tony Abbott say it was a Great Big New Tax On Everything?

(Okay, that's harsh. I say it to make a point rather than to insult you or anyone else and don't mean to it offend).

I rarely use the word "sheeple", but in this case it is probably justified. To me, that says 70% of people didn't spend 15 minutes with Google looking at their options to reduce the tax they might pay before answering the question poll. Think about it - its a tax on carbon emissions. If you emit less carbon, you pay less tax. If you pay less tax, you have (proportionally) more money than everyone else. Most people want to have more money than everyone else. 70% of people don't want to emit less carbon in exchange for having more money. 70% of people are, therefore, idiots. Unfortunately, 70% of people being idiots is not surprising.

Frankly, I think the lack of critical thinking skills in this country is far more damaging to us than any tax a government could invent.

 

A tax on carbon isnt going to change a planet going through a pole shift. Politicians would rather stand around arguing about the money than face a geophysical reality.

That has as much chance as arguing on the Titanic and blaming the ship is sinking because the passengers had too much to eat for dinner and that raising the menu prices will fix the problem ...