"The majority of scientists" is a fabrication of the press. When someone at the pub says to you "Everyone thinks blah blah blah" you know that they are exaggerating and making stuff up to push the agenda of their opinions. The media do the same thing. "Every scientist agrees blah blah blah" "9 out of 10 dentists use blah blah blah". I could also point out that that the majority of scientists are no more qualified to comment on climate than a checkout chick at Coles. Do you really believe that the opinion of a metalurgist, chemist or topologist are relevant here? Anyone who pushes the "Majority of scientists blah blah blah" flag is propagating a willfully deceptive piece of propaganda that has no basis in truth.
"I could also point out that that the majority of scientists are no more qualified to comment on climate than a checkout chick at Coles." And I suppose you and your extreme right wing mates are!!!!!!! Where have I heard these views before. The Telegraph,the Australian,the commercial TV stations,Radio,magazines ,etc.All owned or heavily influenced by the rich and powerful. People just mouth what they have heard ,and feel safe being part of the crowd.Those with interests in keeping the status quo pay mega millions to persuade people to ignore the very dangerous situations that are developing.It cost polluters money to stop polluting.It,s cheaper to advertise and persuade. People don't want to recognize bad things anyway,so easy for them to do so. But you either pay now,or you pay a lot more later.
Thankyou mikedm for a common sense response. I question the cost to the Australian citizen of the driver to cut energy useage - IMO market price of energy would have looked after that without having to slug the people for the sake of green ideology. However, my point exactly on the unseen externalities. Like Albanese you have avoided the issue of an unfair carbon tax. Instead you have diverted the argument to the existance of climate change. The OP was questioning the effectiveness of carbon tax.
Wondering why nobody mentions, or even seems concerned, that a large amount of the revenue from this "Tax on Life" goes to the United Nations to support...whatever it is that they do
Ozone depletion...recorded by scientists... action taken Cancer caused by smoking...recorded by scientists..action taken CO2 emissions recorded ...No action taken?? Do we only accept science when it suits our economic lifestyle? Regards Errol 43
The Australian Constitution can only be amended by referendum, so did I miss the vote? because as I far as I understand the taxation is illegitimate and the Governor-General has failed in their duty to dismiss the Prime Minister prior to the implementation of this taxation. This issue now needs to be addressed to the Queen in regards to the failure of her representative to act Australian Constitution - Section 114 - States may not raise forces - Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
Peter I could point out that the "climate change" agenda is an invention of the most extreme of the right wing. The central clearing bank for Cap'n Trade is the Rothschild Bank of Switzerland. Rothschild Bank Australia is actively promoting the Carbon Tax in press adverts. General Electric is massively leveraged in favour of emissions trading. All of the big Merchant banks are rubbing their hands together waiting for the biggest derivatives market since US housing to become rivers of cash for them. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi Group. "Global Warming" is creation of the extreme right devised to create a vast new revenue and speculation source for them. It was take up by clever "left" entities such as Geenpeace and the Australian Green Party as a way of tapping cash and recognition for themselves. They quotes speculative junk modelling as truth, they told porkies and exaggerated in order to induce fear because they found that they could increase donations and gain air time for themselves if they became alarmists for something that was fabricated by right wing think tanks. In the end the lunatic fringe unwittingly became a Brown Shirt Army for the bankers that they despised as hippies took up the hoax and proclaimed it as truth by playing upon fear. The board rooms of Goldman and JP Morgan must fall about laughing at the irony of the greenies and hippies and crusties falling for their fabrication and actually becoming the spokespeople and foot soldiers unwittingly serving the propaganda and agenda the very bankers that they despise while at the same time handing over their money and sovereignty to the most extreme right wing entities on Earth.
No, that is the point, absolutely no economic consideration seems to be taken at all - just make the people pay. Action is only taken when politicians see brownie points for perceived trendy ideologies. It has nothing to do with economics - if it did the carbon tax would have never got up. Eg. Ozone depletion...recorded by scientists... action taken - topic of the day, action taken, ideology brownie points, no economic consideration Cancer caused by smoking...recorded by scientists..action taken (cigarette tax, people pay) - topic of the day, action taken, ideology brownie points, no economic consideration CO2 emissions recorded ...No action taken?? (carbon tax, people pay) topic of the day, action taken, ideology brownie points, definitely no economic consideration Fast food causing obesity to quickly rise to No.1 health issue.... no action taken (just increase health insurance premiums, people pay) - topic of the day, politically incorrect to single out fat people, as well this group could soon be the majority of voters - no economic consideration Consumption of alcohol not far behind obesity as a health issue.... no action taken (just increase health insurance premiums, people pay) - politically suicidal and definitely considered ideologically unaustralian to pick on piss heads - no economic consideration
"Property ... belonging to a State" has been construed very narrowly by the High Court. In the Steel Rails Case Mason, Deane and Gaudron JJ said at 248 that 'a tax on property for the purposes of s114 will exist if and only if it is imposed on a tax payer in reference to a relationship between the tax payer and the property and the relationship is such that it represents a tax on ownership or holding of property.' This meant Capital Gains on the sale of State property was not taxable, but a tax on the use of the property eg. tax on rent, is not within s114 therefore a valid law. Hence the Mineral Resources Rent Tax. I have learned the words of Constitution do not mean what you think they mean. Deference usually goes to the Federal Government.
Oh,its just a cunning conspiracy.Illuminati!! Look,what you said is just too much. I'll let readers judge this post and make adjustments to their opinion of your reasonableness. I think your just pulling my leg.
Yeah, I know it has sort of become lost in the political rhetoric but..........The Carbon Tax is not in fact a tax, it is a fine. That's why it is constitutional. Sort of like paying a fine when speeding, this fine is applied when polluting. One poster earlier incorrectly stated that the "tax" was applied to every single Australian. It is not of course, it is only applied to the relevant polluters. I understand the likelihood of these same polluters trying to pass on the cost of the fine to the general public, but I'm a stickler for accuracy. One final point to note that you will not see anywhere. The choice for Australian Voters is not between the Julia's "Clean Energy Future" and nothing; it is actually a choice between Julia's policy and Tony's policy. No-one on this board would actually have heard of Tony's policy because it has rarely been reported. Here it is: http://www.nationals.org.au/DirectActionPlan.aspx Essentially it proposes to give industry 3.2 Billion dollars of tax payers money in they hope that they will find ways of reducing their emissions. I know that it is a hilarious policy, but there you have it. It would be like giving a heroin addict 1 million dollars as an incentive to give up the drug. So before you come across as either uninformed or misinformed, just remember that by dismissing the government position, it means that you in turn support the coalition's obscene alternate policy (you are not in fact getting a return to NOTHING). Try arguing for the Coalition's policy over dinner sometime, and you'll quickly realise why the government's position is a clear winner (albeit in a pool of poor choices.)
A tax on carbon emissions is the the most effective method for establishing a price on carbon emissions. You put a price tag on it and that's what its worth. Everybody agrees that's the the best way of doing it initially (including Tony Abbott, back when it was politically convenient for him to support the idea). After a price is established, the best way of maintaining that price is to let the market calculate what it should be. That's what the Emissions Trading Scheme will do when its introduced in a few years time - the government imposed price of carbon emissions will become the market value price of carbon emissions. The government will continue to influence the market price by slowly reducing the number of pollution permits. The price of the permits will be reflected in their relative scarcity and the price will rise. At some point it will be cheaper for companies to reduce their carbon emissions rather than pay for a permit. It will be up to the companies (currently) doing the polluting to calculate where that point is. Once they have done that, they have an economic incentive to reduce their carbon emissions and generally be more efficient with their resources. Being efficient isn't a bad thing. It's always complicated, but in the long run its much more profitable. So yes, the carbon tax is effective in an economic sense and that's what it was designed to do - make carbon emissions an economic factor. The reason for this is (unfortunately) because people care more about their money than they do about their environment and money isn't always the most important thing in the world
You are absolutely correct. The most effective way to raise tax revenue is to introduce a new tax. Now, to rephrase the original topic (OP)... how effective will the carbon tax be in achieving the goal of reduced global warming (should global warming actually exist)?
Big A.D. would you humour us all by responding to these two requests: 1) Would you be against the tax if it indirectly resulted in polluters moving to China or Mongolia which have even fewer environmental restrictions than Australia has, to continue polluting? 2) Please give an example where a tax, although for seemingly good intentions, has not had unforeseen externalities that exacerbated the problem or created new problems. I genuinely want to believe there has been one solid example.
The early 50 s wet, as early mid 80 s cold wet as, the early 12 s wet as cold as , I could go on and on,Watch out for that iceberg......
I'm staggered that it's becoming a common belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Please ask yourself honestly - "Have I diligently looked into the data and science on this, or just listened to the most persuasive argument?" Our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 18% oxygen, 1-2% water (depending on humidity), 1% other trace gases, and 0.039% carbon dioxide. The thermal conductivity of water vapor is 0.016, The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide as a gas is 0.0146. CO2 is therefore 9.59% more effective as a thermal insulator than water vapor. But there is at any point in time 25.6 to 51.2 times the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This makes our averaged thermal conductivity between 0.01594 and 0.0157. If we were to succeed in reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere to 0.035%, then at any point in time there would be 28.6 to 57.2 times the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere, and our averaged thermal conductivity rage is from 0.01595 to 0.01597. But, of course, nitrogen has a thermal conductivity of 0.024. And at any point in time there is between 35 and 70 times the amount if it in the atmosphere as the combination of water vapor and carbon dioxide. Now, if anyone can do the thermal dynamics and tell me what the temperature differential is in degrees kelvin for a movement of 40ppm carbon dioxide, then there is your answer as to how many degrees difference we can expect. As a red herring (just for the fun of it), if you condense carbon dioxide to the point where it changes to state to a liquid or solid, it actually becomes a refrigerant (-78.5 degrees)... Hmm...
My problem is that it is not a tax on pollution and those offenders continue on with their actions. I think they chose carbon because there's more money in it. Let's reduce carbon emissions by using petrol tax to create a rail network across the country and efficient buses throughout the cities. Oops no. Sorry we need that money for general revenue to spend on land rights for gay whales and other such favours to keep us in power. The CT is all a scam by Goldman Sachs et al. Otherwise I'm all for fining industry that pollutes our land, water and sky and leaves taxpayers to clean up the mess but this version is utter rubbish. My grandfather had an expression: "about as much use as a ha'penny of gin in a bucket of cold water". The mental and moral pygmies in charge of Oz have outdone themselves on this little conundrum - how to keep the real rulers of the world on side, and still keep your backside on the plush seat of an all expenses paid five star chauffeur driven government car.
