Carbon Price announced today

As compared to your mess of logic? Hilarious.

Incidentally, monetary theory is a field that has even less evidence than climate change...

 

So again, what if we take unilateral action and tax carbon reliant exports as well? What if we get past the (correct) assumption that we will be penalising ourselves economically in the short term by introducing the carbon tax and simply require that anyone trading with us has to stick to the same standards we use? This isn't unheard of and is actually quite common - electrical goods have to meet local standards, pharmaceutical produces have to be proven to be safe before they can be prescribed and sold and food items can't have more than a certain amount of harmful substances in them if they're going to end up on the shelves at Woolworths.

If we set a tax rate of $X per ton of CO2 released in order to reduce our emissions to below 1990/2000/whenever levels, then anyone else who hasn't reduced their emissions by the same amount can get taxed at the same rate if they want to sell stuff to us. On the flip-side, they could also get some sort of tax credit on the things they buy from us if their country takes the same approach, since our products would (maybe) be priced higher but would be produced with less emissions.

This isn't counter to the concept of free trade because the "free" part means "freedom" and not "free lunch". Anyone is more than welcome to trade with us, but we don't have to accept cheap and dirty goods without some form of financial recognition that they are cheap and dirty compared to our more expensive but clean goods.

Doing that means we can effectively put tariffs on imports and protect local industry without pissing off anyone we have a free trade agreement with because their argument will basically consist of saying "we want to pump crap into the atmosphere and flood your market with cheap stuff and its unfair of you to make us give a toss about the affect on the environment". Anyone who uses that argument is going to sound like a moron and will be internationally condemned because you can't get away with shitting on someone trying to be green with so much effort being put into exactly that all around the world. The only real solution is for other counties to reduce their carbon emissions as well.

If we taxed dirty imports and we did it first in line with a local carbon tax, we'd have a dozen counties follow us within 12 months (just like how all the other mining countries started looking at copying our idea of a higher mining tax).

 

I'm not a global warming sceptic, I just oppose all forms of big government and taxation increases. Especially when we are lied to about it. Especially when it will serve essentially Zero purpose.

I think this Danish guy knows his shit when it comes to the science and politics of climate change, and he thinks that carbon taxation is a very very minor sideshow in dealing with CO2 emissions.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm

how can you just go on and on and on waxing lyrical about how wonderful this government is, when their policy is going to do essentially nothing for the environment? As a believer in climate change, shouldn't you be holding the government to a higher standard than that? Shouldn't you be demanding that they actually implement policies to help resolve the situation, rather than just using it as political cover to raise our taxes?

 

Big A.D you sound like a smart guy. I want you to tell me 3 things 1) what is CO2. 2) what percentage odmf the atmosphere did it make up 200 years ago.3) what percentage dies it make up now.

Hopefully that should clear up why taxing one of the building blocks of life is bullshit.

Maybe we understand propaganda. The mainstream media says don't buy PMs so we do. That say pay a carbon tax so we say, pay your own carbon tax.

 

For the record, I don't think our current government is particularly brilliant. They've continued with a number of good policies that were originally implemented by previous governments (from both sides of the political spectrum), they've introduced a number of bad/silly/trivial policies and they've introduced a number of good ones too. They've stuffed up the implementation of policies in several areas, regardless of whether you or I think those policies were good or bad and they've succeeded in implementing others very well.

I happen to think this particular policy for the introduction of a carbon tax is a good idea, but it's quite possible the implementation of it will be stuffed up, so while I support the general premise it remains to be seen whether it will produce a good outcome.

Now, regarding Bjorn Lomborg's thoughts on whether a carbon tax will have any effect, I agree with him that innovation in energy supply and consumption will be the key to reducing emissions, but I don't agree with his conclusions that a tax won't make a significant contribution to that. Energy, particularly energy derived from fossil fuels is undervalued because the direct cost of digging the stuff out of the ground and setting it on fire is easily quantifiable but the external costs of doing that are not as easily measurable and therefore we haven't really bothered measuring them at all until recently.

I agree with him that we need to spend more money on R&D into renewable energy sources, but up until now we haven't done that and we need the impetus to start. Putting a price on carbon gives everyone a degree of certainty as to the environment they're going to operate in whether that concerns investment, efficiency targets, production volumes or areas of research. If the people working on carbon sequestration, for example, know that they need to be able to filter out X tons of carbon for every ton of coal burnt for the technology to be financially viable, they can adjust their research funding projections and areas of study more efficiently (alternatively, they might calculate that carbon sequestration is a complete waste of time and research dollars because it will never be financially viable).

If we had a great big pile of carbon tax revenue available, we probably wouldn't keep losing foreign investment dollars in search of places to base clean energy development and manufacturing facilities. We'd also have bigger incentives for all the scientists and researchers we educate to stay here instead of taking their work and business ventures overseas.

If the extra cash for doing all those things doesn't come from the people that are doing the most polluting, its going to have to come from the rest of us. Until now, the prospect of it coming from the average taxpayer has been virtually unthinkable because nobody likes a general increase in taxes. A carbon tax isn't like a fixed income tax and allows for people to reduce their tax burden by consuming less energy, using energy from renewable sources or a combination of both.

 

Dwayne, any response I would make to you would be redundant, so while I respect your right to an opinion of me, I would simply point you back to my previous posts for my opinion of you.

To Big AD , you seem to agree it is traitorous for an Australian government to impose taxes on Australian industry, workers and families to the benefit of Chinese Communist polluters, but can't bring yourself to say it.

Your desire to engage in a hypothetical fantasy about what "we" could do after "we" tax ourselves into uncompetitive oblivion only goes to show a complete removal from reality and demonstrate further my observation of mental contortions to rationalise a belief in the benevolence of the state. It's Animal Farm my friend, and big government are the pigs . . . dressed up with lipstick in this case . . . seeking to deprive us of all the freedoms we enjoy and any rewards for our efforts.

Fiat money loaned at interest is a total fraud. There is no scarcity except that imposed on us be bankers and governments for their benefit, as I have said. There is absolutely no reason that value creating endeavours, such as new energy initiatives, could not be financed by the creation of new money to reflect the value to be created from the endeavour. It needs nothing, except to break the shackles on our minds and people in power who care for the common wealth of the people.

 

The absolute levels of something are irrelevant, what is important is the affect of the change - in this case a 40% rise in the last 200 years. As an example, insulin makes up a very small percentage of the body, but relatively small differences in insulin levels can have massive effects on the body as a whole.

 

Not sure why people are advocating measurement based on "per capita" or "per unit of land mass" (presuming you mean something like km^2). I would have thought the only measurement that matters is total CO2 output (in tons or whatever) per nation?

 

Simply because nations are an arbitrary measure. Would it be reasonable for the Vatican for example (population under 1000) to emit the same amount of CO2 as, say, the US (population 310 million or so)?

 

I see. Hmm, I don't believe in AGW so haven't given the mechanics of an ETS much thought.

My immediate thoughts say that each nation would be responsible for neutralizing their own footprint, and the surplus traded out on the ETS market.

So, yes the Vatican would be allowed to emit the same as the US, as long as they are neutralizing it. If they don't play ball with the rest of the world, they are punished via economic trade sanctions.

 

Hear. Hear.

Climate change/global blah blah has been turned into a new religion.

Can't understand it so establish high priests and get the flock to obey some commandments.
Extract some tithes and explain it will help the believers all to get to heaven.
A carbon tax will let some sleep better at night but belief does that.

Anyone who has observed the government's pathetic stewardship of things it CAN influence in our environment, and of the controls sold out to business interests and short term solutions will remain atheist and agnostic.

p.s there's always a dollar to be made with a new religion - just ask Ron L. Hubbard.

 

Well, I don't think the land is the party demanding electricity from burning coal, that would be man. So how about we work on how much pollution is created per person, ie, the party demanding the product?

 

What if carbon tax was simply added to all CO2 polluting energy costs and operations that involve venting greenhouse gases? I.e. coal/gas electricity, oil sales and chemical manufacturing?

This would cover CO2 from cars and from big business, and cover everyone equally. Money would have to stay in australia to be used in australian offsetting efforts.

Or is that a stupid idea (that will be likely be shot to bits) too? This is not my area of experience. Wouldn't that be fair? I.e. as long as each country/capita/km^2/unit of land mass offsets what it emits, then we should all be ok?

One price on carbon is not a fair target - replanting labour costs would be cheaper in china than in australia.

 

Well, both economics and anecdotal experience says you're wrong. I remember the traffic (or lack of it) on the roads in 2008 when petrol got up to $1.60/L and it was great - way less traffic in this part of Sydney anyway, and a noticeable increase in passengers on the trains.

And I would also dispute the religion tag. Religions aren't based on evidence. Climate change science is based on evidence, and if new evidence turns up that indicates it's not happening, or caused by something other than CO2 then I'm more than happy to change my mind about the whole thing. I accept that there is a difference between the science of climate change and formulating an appropriate policy response as well and a carbon tax may or may not be the best policy response but it does annoy me when people misrepresent the issue, and the science.

 

Do you mean misrepresent in the way that Al Gore, the disgraced East Anglia Research Unit, (who's head, Dr Phil Jones has stepped down after being found to be forging research data), NASA (who have now publically retracted their grossly overstated claims on ice melting), or the Head of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri who is also disgraced after setting himself up for a huge windfall if "Cap N Trade" passes?

Who is misrepresenting the issue? So far, NASA, the IPCC and The East Anglia Institute have been caught among many others.... Does that annoy you?

 

+ 1

Absolutely Disgraceful Scientific Fraud.

 

Oh yes carbon tax will slow a lot of economic activity and so result in a lot of people being out of work and reducing their imprints .

A lot of people would claim their religious beliefs are not disproven by science - 'intelligent design' is the usual retort.

I appreciate your obvious sincerity but look at what 'they' hope to achieve, what they will achieve, and who will benefit. Ask why there aren't plans to turn income from this carbon tax into free public transport hubs for instance. Look at who sponsors the 'pro' climate change/global warming researchers and their institutions and ask why. Look at the contributors to political parties in this country and compare it to our biggest polluters, oops sorry, industry.

I don't dispute the earth is in polluted trouble. I've believed in action against polluters and reasonable pro-action since 'Silent Spring' by Rachel Carson - but 'they' do nothing because 'they' are too busy making money. The world continues to groan under PET bottles and a million pollutions which are not taxed because of 'industry' considerations. Now the CIA influenced leader makes a firm decision that 'we' will have a carbon tax by her set date, and every person in Australia (except the top 10 percent who own almost all the wealth) will have to worry about how to make ends meet, we'll create a giant pool of dispossessed people to ferment a revolution which will never be seen, but the violence and rhetoric will.

I don't support a carbon tax because I believe that hypocrisy does not make for good government or good decisions which are in the interest of the people.

 

What it comes down to is the fact that we ate being conditioned to hate ourselves for creating CO2 while being taught to love big government for taxing us because somehow a tax will solve all the world's problems.

 

Yeah...also...I feel it's kinda like Gen Y's 'Vietnam'.

 

carbon tax is the biggest crock of shit ive ever heard .It wont fix the problem if the government wants to introduce it they should pay for it out of our already overpaid taxes .... ahhh i feel better now