carbon tax bull

[Shaddam IV]

But Ms Gillard said power prices had risen unsustainably as a result of state-sanctioned over-investment, driving up energy costs by 50 per cent in the past four years, in addition to the 10 per cent impact of carbon price.

Since all those state governments were Labor Gillard is really doing the near impossible and making herself even more of a spectacle of dishonesty and accelerating the destruction of her party. Does she think all Australians are really that stupid?

 

[wrcmad]

But Ms Gillard said power prices had risen unsustainably as a result of state-sanctioned over-investment, driving up energy costs by 50 per cent in the past four years, in addition to the 10 per cent impact of carbon price.

Fair dinkum, she is a dead set f'wit.

 

[Lovey80]

But Ms Gillard said power prices had risen unsustainably as a result of state-sanctioned over-investment, driving up energy costs by 50 per cent in the past four years, in addition to the 10 per cent impact of carbon price.

Fair dinkum, she is a dead set f'wit.

I reckon! The worst part about this is the Labor party corruption between Federal and State level. She had the power to empower the energy watchdog to do EXACTLY what she is threatening since Labor took office in 2007. Only now two things have changed, NSW and QLD assassinated state Labor parties AND the carbon tax came in, so all of a sudden it's a problem?

She is dead set right in what she is saying about states gold plating their grids to increase revenue but the hypocracy in her jumping on it after she brings in the carbon tax is mind boggling.

I dare Big A.D. Or Peter to name a worse federal government in Australia's history.

 

[JulieW]

Billy McMahon was worse.

 

[Water&Food]

I love having solar. Unplug.

alcohol distillery.

biomass diesel.

No more being extorted by energy companies.
No more being extorted by fuel giants.

Grow your own. Recycle waste.

.

 

[JulieW]

I thought the weather looked like when I was growing up. I remember long hot dry summers and being sent home from school when the temperature was too high to continue, and almost tropical storms around Christmas and chill you to the bone Easters. (Melbourne, Australia). Now it seems someone has found the charts.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-and-tells-us-what-to-expect-looking-forward/

The Way it Is: Back to the 50s.

In 2006 , I loudly proclaimed on national outlets that we were going back to the 1950s as far as the climate pattern went and that the patterns of the 50s which opened the east coast up for hurricanes, as well as hot, droughty look, for the southern US would take over. The reason was simple, we were in a cycle roughly like the period when the PDO and AMO warmed and a flip to the cold PDO was on the way. So its not brain surgery to then go to the maps of the summer of the 1950s with heat and drought,

Melbourne: home of four seasons in one day.

 

[thatguy]

Whatever You Think of Global Warming Fascism is Not Cool
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/whatever-you-think-of-global-warming-fascism-is-not-cool.html

We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances a war is a typical example where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

That my friends is what Global warming is all about... control, carbon tax is a "life tax" it taxes the very breath in our lungs

 

[hawkeye]

Has this been posted here yet?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

Source:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Thank God a political party has the guts to stand up to the polluters and try to get them to reduce their dangerous wastes .Even though the rich and powerful spend millions on advertising trying to prevent this.And the feeble minded can't see through this irresponsible and antisocial strategy.


...
Just thought you'd like another point of view on this matter.

OH BOY!! I was hoping to find the usual suspects on here spouting their charateristic verbal diarrhea and it looks like i'm not going to be disappointed... :lol:

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Thank God a political party has the guts to stand up to the polluters and try to get them to reduce their dangerous wastes.

In NSW we have the EPA to do that. We don't need the Fed's taxing every citizen with the excuse that they are trying to do the same.

Having been involved in heavy industry my whole working life, I'd like to present another point of veiw on this matter. This is but just one industry example.

Below are two pictures of steelmaking sites:

One is Port Kembla Steelworks near Wollongong NSW.
One is Anshan Steel Works-Liaoning Province, China.

Given China outputs Australia's total annual steel production every 3 days, what difference do you think a carbon tax is going to make?

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/4088_portkembla.jpg

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/4088_anshansteelworks.jpg

So if I'm only shooting three people a day,when other people are shooting a hundred,then I shouldn't be stopped?
.

oh trust me - you should definately be stopped!

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Anyone who believes that Labor's piddling compensation will cover their increased costs must have an IQ in the 60's or lower.

Isn't that a requirement for ALP membership?

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

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

It's not that "nobody mentions it" - it's more like the Fabian scumbags who are propagating it simply IGNORE THIS FACT simply because further scrutiny down this line will unwind the pug ugly truth behind their whole agenda and the scumbags behind it.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

"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!!!!!!!

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.

The extreme right and left are two points on exactly the same spot of the circle - on the exact opposite side of the circle to where libertarianism and freedom of the individual lies.

Those supporting a carbon tax = supporing UN control one world government are no different to the Adolf Hitlers and Joseph Stalins of this world...

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

The OP was questioning the effectiveness of carbon tax.

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

what an absolute croc! :lol:

 

[Shaddam IV]

Yippe is on fire today.

 

[nonrecourse]

Go Yippee

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

[thatguy]

I'd like to dedicate this page to Yippee

 

[Lovey80]

The OP was questioning the effectiveness of carbon tax.

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

what an absolute croc! :lol:

You are correct YKY.

At some point it will be cheaper for companies to move offshore to countries like China and India or close up shop all together rather than pay for a permit.

There fixed that for ya!

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

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...

I've said it once before and i'll say it again - water vapour (H2O) in the atmosphere has a much greater "greenhouse effect" than does CO2.
so what do the government lovers want to do next? Introduce a water tax? [that would be rather consistent since they're already taxing another essential ingredient of life [CO2] so the dumbasses may as well propagate a tax on H2O as well].
Methane has a much much much higher greenhouse gas effect than does CO2...
So what you gonna do? Introduce a new tax on farting? :lol:

 

[fishball]

In Keynesian economic theory any levies, taxes or the like is supposed to be shared between the Consumer and the Company. The amount depends on several factors such as the price elasticity etc.

The problem when it comes to the real world is that some companies are oligopolies or monopolies such as electricity, gas, water utilities so they can effectively collaborate and pass the full brunt of this 'carbon cost' to the consumer.

The most recent electricity bill for me reflects this. They probably added more than the carbon tax cost onto my bill.

So I agree with YKY too.

In theory the carbon tax would work very nicely in a perfect world, in practice it fails hard.