Carbon Price announced today

No need to write to anyone!!!
Just buy silver and disconnect yourself from fiat as much
as possible and you will accomplish all.

 

Hmmm, personal attacks...

No, I've never heard that ever in my life... thanks for that brand new revelation, even if it is of dubious relevance.

Straw man argument... nobody has mentioned anything about supporting the Chinese environmental catastrophe. I certainly don't, but given that the chinese have far lower CO2 emissions per capita than we do, it's a bit rich for people in western countries to criticise them too much on that front. As for the rest of their somewhat appalling environmental record I'm certainly no fan.

More personal attacks. That's ok, I think you're an idiot as well.

So you're ok with governments taxing everybody by stealth through inflation, but against taxes out in the open. Interesting. And you were criticising others for intellectual poverty and hypocrisy...

Finally there is something I can agree with - not the sensationalist crap about burying our financial independence, but there is definitely a degree of hypocrisy with Australia's position on selling coal overseas but especially selling uranium to others when we're not willing to use nuclear power here ourselves.

What rot. I think traitorous politicians should be dealt with harshly, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Did I mention that you're an idiot?

Wake me up when you're saying something relevant.

Yawn. I agree that in the medium term a carbon tax would only work if there is a global agreement and other countries have a similar arrangement, but your "the sky is falling" hysterics are really overblown.

I apologise to everybody for the personal attacks here. I love a good debate, but normally try to keep it non-personal and at an intellectual level.

 

I thought a lot about your post before responding, but I'll take this section as being representative of it:

Okay, so what if we introduce a carbon tax of, for example, $25 per tonne of CO2. What if we then extend that tax to CO2-reliant exports such as coal as a way of taking responsibility for the products we sell.

Coal sells for about USD$140 per ton and every ton of coal of coal that is burnt produces approximately 2.9 tons of CO2. That would make the effective tax on a tone of coal about $72.50, but say we give foreign buyers a 50% discount on that because they have extra costs of shipping it and burning it in their own power plants. A foreign buyer of Australian coal would pay an extra $36.25 per ton of coal we sell them, bringing the total price to $176.25 per ton.

Obviously doing that means our coal is more expensive that anyone else's which will reduce demand for it to a certain extent. That isn't necessarily a bad thing because we have a big problem at the moment trying to manage out "two speed economy" and increasing the price of our coal exports would help control the high-speed mining sector, which in turn would push our dollar down. That also isn't necessarily a bad thing for everyone trying to sell anything other than coal to foreign buyers (like farmers) and it wouldn't be that bad for people selling stuff like iron ore either because a lower dollar is better for them than the slightly higher average cost of anyone using coal to smelt it into steel which would reduce demand for iron ore proportional to the extra cost.

(A lower Australian dollar would also mean anyone holding precious metals would make an instant gain).

The effect of raising the price of our coal also pushes up the average market price for coal everywhere, because if a country producing a quarter of the all the coal available to be exported in the world (that's us) jacks up the price by $26% then everyone else exporting coal can jack up their prices up to that amount while still being competitive, making coal a more expensive source of energy. This creates an incentive to find cheaper sources of energy and since renewable sources are (mostly) competitive at that cost per megawatt/hour, people everywhere will start using more renewable energy, especially considering that we could, if we wanted to, remove the end-user discount and charge foreign buyers the full tax rate on the emissions they produce with out coal (unless they can prove they've successfully implemented carbon sequestration technology, which at the present rate of progress is about as likely as aircraft pilots having to dodge pigs at 20,000 feet).

On top of this, any tax paid by foreign buyers of Australian coal would end up being spent in Australia, meaning they would be paying for us to transition to a low carbon economy. Given that some people seem to think that taxing the sale of our finite natural resources at the same rate as services which can be provided over and over again is absolutely fine and something like a Resources Super Profits Tax would be grossly inequitable to the billion dollar multi-national corporations to the point that it's worth overthrowing the nation's leader, we're going to need all spare cash we can get to help fund that transition to a low carbon economy, so why not make someone else pay for it if they want our dirty coal that badly?

But this is all a big "what if".

What if the idea of a carbon tax isn't "intellectual poverty"? What if it's thinking three steps ahead of everyone else?

 

So you want to harm the successful mining sector so as to deal with the "two sector economy" Bring everything to the lowest common denominator. I guess that's the exact same logic of increasing the price of inexpensive energy to make the expensive energy the better value.

And you can't even see the problem with that.

lol

 

big AD you always put forward a well thought out answer with rationale & commonsense

 

FFS! Stop this bull shit about per capita CO2.

Quoting intelligencer because I can't be bothered writing it for myself.

How can you honestly believe that any of our owners are serious about the environment when they ignore issues like pollution, nuclear waste and deforestation. All they care about is what they can tax and take away from the slaves. You guys are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, don't take it the wrong way.
What you're doing, the complete lack of critical thinking you're employing, is equivalent to those who can't understand why we invest in PM's and defend the dollars strength.

 

What if it just an excuse for the elites to take our wealth? What if it is just a bunch of shit? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6l1Cp3MYCQ[/youtube]

 

I highly recommend viewing the BBC documentary on global dimming. Check out the results post 9/11

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e_XBwPHqz8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueaib127Ebk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayd5R2NkVcA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA74df19bWs[/youtube]

 

So why is per unit land area the correct way to look at things? Because you and intelligencer say so? Does water area instead of land area count? Why not some other arbitrary measure? Or are you simply cherry picking the measure that will make australia look best?

If we're talking about china though, most of CO2 emissions are produced in manufacturing things not intended for the chinese people but benefit huge populations around the world. How is that different from mining and australia?

Maybe I have issues with all the other problems you're talking about as well - pollution, nuclear waste, deforestation and many others. Personally I am on record as saying that I would prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax, and I'm not convinced that labour are going to come up with a carbon tax that actually is useful, well constructed and not just a blatant revenue grab or hand out to a bunch of rent-seekers, but I'm going to wait and see until I find out the detail of the proposal before I say the world is ending.

 

Great post Gino.

Big AD, I'm sorry but you sound exactly like that moron persephone over at the punch. They way you just go on and on and on apologising for the government makes me wonder if you aren't a paid blogger employed to push the Labor line ad nauseum on boards like this. Really, you have no shame at all.

RUBBISH. how can you honestly try to push such bullshit dude? You speculate that Labor suffered at the 2010 election because they didn't already impose a carbon tax, that is a pure flight of fancy with no basis in reality. The MSM tries to push this idea that Rudd got dumped because he ditched the ETS, what bs. Rudd got dumped because he picked a fight with the miners which he couldn't back down from without losing authority, and because he was roundly hated within his own party. It had nothing to do with not pricing carbon, because *newsflash dickhead, that policy is extremely unpopular in the electorate. If anything, Labor only did as well in the 2010 election because they lied about imposing a carbon tax, but for you to turn around and try to argue that black is white, that Labor suffered at the 2010 election because they didn't tax carbon, that is just beyond the pale and exposes you as a truly unthinking idiot.

No excuse. If the government is going to waste public funds for the private benefit of some homeowners (which is far beyond the reasonable mandate of a limited government) then they better bloody well organise it so that no one fucking dies in the process. For you to defend that outrage is infuriating me right now.

And here you defend even more blatant waste of public funds. Tim Flannery, while he has nice eyes and a fantastic beard (much like Ben Bernanke), shouldn't be paid a red cent by the government to conduct what is essentially propaganda. And Rudd's stimulus spending was the worst waste of money I've ever seen. It was actually what pushed me over the edge from being a Labor supporter to a Liberal. The GFC never was going to impact on Australia so long as we were exporting minerals hand over fist to China at record high prices, so Rudd's cash splash to every bogan and corpse in the country was a national disgrace.

Wayne Swan is the most incompetent treasurer since Jim Cairns. The fact that he called claims that Labor was moving towards a carbon tax "hysterical" just 6 months ago highlights what sort of a clown he really is.

You know exactly what the point is here. The Greens and the Government want us to live in a society where we can't use as much electricity as we normally would. They want to tax the lights off. Like that Earth Hour nonsense. But the fact is that electricity consumption goes hand in hand with high living standards. So the government, hell-bent on forcing us all to reduce our electricity consumption, is actually trying to reduce our living standards, and you are a coward for feigning that you don't know what he's talking about..

bullshit. Its all about pandering to the 2 rural independents who enable this government, and that's all.

You're talking out of your arse. This is the most socialist government in Australia's history, the greens are drunk with power, and they are hell bent on redistributing as much wealth as they can, and I'm sickened by it.

 

Nothing particularly new for me but interesting none-the-less. Thanks.

 

Good question.

But what if it is actually a real problem and isn't?

 

of course it should be based per capita its all about the amount each person uses. land mass has very little to do with it they are trying to work out a system thats fair to every country that can be measured & thats per person not land mass. kangaroos dont use power people do. i understand your arguement too but it needs to be measurable across the board to be fair to all. seems a bit 1 sided to say we have lots of spare land so we get a free pass.Im not convinced its a good idea at all !!!but if it has to be implemented then there has to be a yardstick & that yardstick is the people that create the problem

 

No worries. About the only thing I 'learnt' at tafe 5 years ago

 

You have my sympathies, Dwayne. You acknowledge your ignorance of monetary theory then attempt to ridicule that which you admit to not comprehending. You condemn yourself with your own words and I would be embarrassed if I were you for so effectively demonstrating your own irrelevance and inability to contribute anything of value.

As for Big AD's theory of "what if", I posit the mental contortions and complexities attempted are only necessary if you need to rationalise a belief in the ultimate authority and benevolence of big government in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Is it not clear? Taxing carbon emissions only applies within Australia, financially punishing Australians by increasing the cost of living, which will reduce even further household saving rates and levels of discretionary spending, negatively impacting an already weakened retail sector, while making Australian enterprises less competitive both internationally and domestically against products not subjected to the same costs. All while doing absolutely nothing to actually reduce global carbon emissions. Indeed, they are doing this while actively participating in the pollution of the globe on a scale that is orders of magnitude beyond the pollution our small population can produce . . . and they cannot afford to stop.

You also suggest this government are thinking three steps ahead of everyone else, as if they are omnipotent in their power to control? I suggest they know only how to spend money, raise taxes and do as they're told. This government has to appease its internal factions, the Greens, the Independents, the Chinese and the Americans in everything they do. They're having trouble planning one step ahead let alone three! There's no strategy and the government is simply reacting to the demands of any given day.

You are cut to ribbons on Occam's Razor.

There is no value created with this tax, value will only be destroyed through their squandering, additional bureaucracy and redistribution efforts to create more welfare dependents.

This tax is an offence against the financial and civil interests of working Australians. And though they may not realise it, it follows that those who support it are traitors to their countrymen.

 

Kram. Something I read about some years ago. I have yet to hear among both sides of the global warming debate about global dimming and what it would do to global weather conditions. Ask politicians about global dimming and they tell you they never heard of it yet they all claim to be experts. If you have an opinion one way or another about global warming it may pay to investigate further an issue like global dimming.

Kram Thanks for posting the links about global dimming. I think it may be a contributing factor in keeping global warming temps down but who am I to say. I am not an expert and I don't do debates.

I only wish politicians could debate as well as some of the posters on this site then we might get somewhere. Their debates in parliament on climate change are an absolute disgrace as fear is their only topic.

Kram Thanks for your post


Regards Errol43

 

Inexpensive energy isn't actually that "inexpensive" when you include the externalised costs of the higher CO2 emissions. What makes the mining sector successful anyway? The fact that they can privatise the profits from digging up our dirt and socialise the losses when vast qualities of crap get pumped into the air we all breathe. If we valued our dirt more, we wouldn't sell it so cheaply and we wouldn't have a "two-speed economy" problem with one sector going gang busters and the rest scraping along trying to keep up - we'd have a single speed economy doing quite nicely overall.

C'mon, every major economic study on dealing with the effects of climate change (including the Stern Review from the UK and our own Garnaut Review) has said very clearly that the cost of transitioning to a low carbon economy will be less the sooner we start the process and the costs of doing nothing will be huge.

I honestly find it fascinating how a forum full of people who are "ahead of the game" economically by owning precious metals can't see the parallels in reducing our carbon footprint before everyone else does.

 

Maybe it's the ability to smell out propaganda, lies and manipulation.

 

Maybe it's sheer bloody-mindedness about anyone mentioning the word "tax".

 

Probably because there is no clear or even vague connection between giving the Gillard government more tax and a reduction in carbon emissions anywhere in Australia or for that matter on the planet?

It is patently clear that the sole purpose of the "CarbonTax" in Australia is nothing more than a panic attempt by Labour to raise funds to compensate for their letting the Australian power grid rot during the boom times before the GFC.

Carbon tax does not equal carbon emissions reductions.