carbon tax bull

[Dogmatix]

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.

This is a good point.

I think it is also worth considering that the scientists that actually are climate scientists will have a slight bias towards climate change - simply because it increases their employment prospects.

If climate change is not real, then what are all the climate scientists going to do? How will they get their climate experiments paid for? People might even stop buying their books. Science and funding go hand-in-hand. Always look at who is doing the funding and what their agenda is.

Surely the 'scientists' that work for big pharma have taught us that the field of science is certainly capable of producing results tailored to a desired outcome.

 

[JulieW]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/voters-desert-carbon-tax-20120701-21b4d.html

PUBLIC support for the carbon price has plunged to a record low of 33 per cent, as Prime Minister Julia Gillard faces the fight of her political life to try to reconcile the public to her deeply unpopular tax.
An Age/Nielsen poll taken in the days leading up to the launch of the tax yesterday found one in two Australians believe it will leave them worse off.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-carbon-tax-20120701-21b4d.html#ixzz1zO7vN6vK

 

[Ozboy]

On a somewhat related topic, and before the lock, can someone shed some light in the proposed penalties the govt. was threatening people and buissnessess with if they blamed price hikes on the c tax.
I'd heard some outlandish figures being discussed but more to the point, it really has a Stalinist feel about it; " comrade, you are guilty of speaking the truth, and therefore guilty of defaming the party. As such your sentenced to a financial gulag".
There will be those who support this { both the tax and the anhialation of free speech}, but what does it say about your position or beliefs when you don't have the guts to face your critics comments ?

 

[tozak]

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.

"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.

This has become a problem more recently and that is exactly why, people "learn" by what they are "told is true" not what seems more logical. By "interpreting" rather than "reading" the Constitution many unjust laws have been written and only by the publics conditioning and acceptance to these new laws are they actually enacted. If the general consensus of the public was that this is truly in contradiction to the Constitution then it cannot take effect.

Anyone who refuses to cooperate with the new law would be charged and summons as to the associated offenses but would trialed by Jury

The Australian Constitution provides that: "80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes."

If the general consensus of the public was that this was unjust then the Jury would execute their powers of Jury nullification to judge the law its self invalid and this would be the test case to overthrow the law regardless of the High Courts ruling

Well this is all of course in a perfect world, in reality (1) I don't think majority of the population even understand what is going on and (2) Most people find it easier to go with the flow and make the best out of a bad situation than dedicate a lifetime to challenging a system that will throw everything they have at them

 

[Shaddam IV]

On a somewhat related topic, and before the lock, can someone shed some light in the proposed penalties the govt. was threatening people and buissnessess with if they blamed price hikes on the c tax.
I'd heard some outlandish figures being discussed but more to the point, it really has a Stalinist feel about it; " comrade, you are guilty of speaking the truth, and therefore guilty of defaming the party. As such your sentenced to a financial gulag".
There will be those who support this { both the tax and the anhialation of free speech}, but what does it say about your position or beliefs when you don't have the guts to face your critics comments ?

The purpose of the threat is to make business owners so afraid of letting people know about cost increases due to the Carbon Tax that they will simply not risk saying it. They know that even if their calculations and price variation is true and accurate they will not risk attracting the attention of a Big Government Department with an agenda. It is a standover tactic. Better to be silent and not risk being singled out and made an example of.

 

[Big A.D.]

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.

....

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.

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)?

It obviously depends how much the tax is.

At the current rate of $23/tonne with the scheduled future increases it will probably hit the target of a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions on what they were in 2000 by 2020. Given that our emissions have actually been rising since 2000, that actually equates to a 22% reduction on what our CO2 emissions would be if we just did nothing and kept polluting at the same rate we have been since 2000.

Will our carbon tax stop climate change in its tracks? No. It's a global issue and we'll just be playing our part.

However, the carbon tax will be significantly more effective at reducing the effects of climate change than doing nothing.

 

[Big A.D.]

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

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?

No.

Every single thing we do has an effect on businesses' decisions in how to make the most money possible. The fact that we have a relatively high minimum wage has definitely caused some businesses to move some or all of their operations offshore, yet I wouldn't necessarily call that a bad outcome when the alternative is people being nominally employed yet living in poverty. The same goes for employing (or not employing) child labor, the application of OH&S standards and basic rights for workers like not being sacked because you take a day off to get over a nasty case of flu.

At the end of the day, we have to make decisions about what we do and do not find to be acceptable behavior in this country. That means making choices between enjoying the benefits of certain practices and enjoying the benefits of a healthy, civilized society.

If China wants to allow businesses to pollute, or sell milk contaminated with plastic, or make children's' toys with lead paint, or drive cars that explode when running over small potholes, or knowingly expose workers to toxic chemicals then those are decisions for China, as unfortunate and tragic as those decisions might be.

But you can't do that s*** here and I'm fine with it.

 

[Shaddam IV]

However, the carbon tax will be significantly more effective at reducing the effects of climate change than doing nothing.

By .004 of 1% according to the IPPC. I would bet that this tiny amount will be swamped by the movement offshore of Australian manufacturing to China as relatively clean Australian businesses go under due to the tax (ie: any company or business employing non-union workers who therefore will not receive bailouts) and the production is taken up by China who build more coal fired power stations each year that Australia has in the entire country.

If Gillard really believed in the truth of the Carbon Tax she would let Alcoa fold. This would reduce our energy usage massively. Instead she gives it a 95% bailout with taxpayers money. Because she fears what the Unions would do to her when they lose their members jobs. Corruption and lies from end to end.

 

[Willow]

If you ask these scientists, they would say there was an ice age and the planet warmed out of it. Human induced Co2 emissions were not responsible for that..

 

[hussman]

Did everyone forget that in 2009 the president of the EU (Van Rompuy) announced that "a world government will be established and funded by world carbon taxes."

And Julia Gillard announced that the revenue from our carbon taxes will be going to the UN.

Her path was there would be no carbon tax

There will be carbon tax and it will be refunded to you

There will be carbon tax and part of it will be paid to the UN

There will be carbon tax and 10% will be paid to the UN

There will be carbon tax and 20% will be paid to the UN

All were waiting for is There will be carbon tax and 95%+ will be paid to the UN. But chances are you wont hear it announced. It will just be paid to the UN and a few lower class families will get a couple hundred bucks in their bank account and Today Tonight will do a segment on how the carbon tax is helping the 'battling Australians'.

How do people have such trouble joining the dots? I think there is a strong sense of denial in this thread.

 

[spannermonkey]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

 

[Shaddam IV]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The carbon tax is not about climate. It is about politics and money.

 

[Big A.D.]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

 

[hussman]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The carbon tax is not about climate. It is about politics and money.

And that there is my very point. We know what the carbon tax is meant for. Its going to be used to send more money to off-shore private interest who have announced that they are going to create a global government funded with world carbon taxes. Its all been announced as I have pointed out earlier.

 

[hussman]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

Your theory is all well and good, but its just a theory at the end of the day. I have given you the facts about why they are implementing a carbon tax. If you choose to ignore it and be a sheep then do it at your own perril, stop clogging up the thread with stupid analogies of dumping on the side of road etc.

 

[wrcmad]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

This analogy is also rubbish (pardon the pun).
The nature strip dumper can't pass on their fine to the consumer.
If fines could be passed on, then this would be no deterrent, and no net benefit to the nature strip, just more revenue for the council.... oh, going round in circles?

 

[thatguy]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

At the end of the day will the oil/coal be left in the ground? A) NO!
The only thing a carbon tax will do is slightly reduce the consumption rate at significant expense to the Australian economy.

Reducing rate of consumption will have little or no effect on eventual outcome

 

[Big A.D.]

Reducing rate of consumption will have little or no effect on eventual outcome

Just think about that for a minute.

If increasing the rate of consumption causes the problem to begin with, what is likely to happen if you reduce the rate of consumption?

 

[wrcmad]

Reducing rate of consumption will have little or no effect on eventual outcome

Just think about that for a minute.

If increasing the rate of consumption causes the problem to begin with, what is likely to happen if you reduce the rate of consumption?

You get to the same outcome a tiny bit slower, but at great cost to the consumer?

 

[Big A.D.]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

This analogy is also rubbish (pardon the pun).
The nature strip dumper can't pass on their fine to the consumer.
If fines could be passed on, then this would be no deterrent, and no net benefit to the nature strip, just more revenue for the council.... oh, going round in circles?

Of course you can pass fines on to the consumer.

You run a small corner store. You dump your garbage in the gutter. The council starts fining you $10 for every kilo of rubbish you dump. You increase the prices of the items in your store. Your customer pay the higher prices. You use the extra money to pay the fines and continue dumping garbage in the gutter.

The store on the corner opposite yours was also dumping their garbage in the gutter. When the fines were introduced, they started selling products with less packaging and more recyclable/reusable material. They still dump a little bit of rubbish in the gutter but they dump way less than you do. They only increase their prices by a fraction of what your increases were. The products on their shelves are now cheaper than yours and more customers go to their store because their prices are cheaper than yours.