CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[AussieAviator]

FF, yes, I do indeed think that it will be a massive new tax, because the cost of living will rise, for no apparent gain. I work very hard, as does my wife. Because of that, we are considered high income earners, and by the government's own calculations, will be approximately $2500 WORSE off every year, and remember this thing goes up every year! And guess what? GST will be calculated on any new inflated bill, such as electricity, which may rise by up to 35%!! I did not want this thread to be a debate about the climate, just the pending threat to this countries ability to compete and ensure all of our futures.

[blackhand]

1. Gravity is a fact, there is one theory and several hypothesis to explain it.
2. Evolution is a fact, there are two theories to explain it.
3. Climate change is fact, there are several HYPOTHESIS to explain it.

Remember that natural phenomena are real, the explanations of how they happen are either theories, i.e have supporting evidence; or hypothesis - an explanation that the evidence is still being developed for.

All is of no consequence as Aust people now have to get on with the new paradigm.
Those that are against it can take heart from the fact that the Durban Conference will see the major "polluders" walk away from any commitment and leave Aust by its self with the carbon penalty on industry.

A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy, whether one thinks this is a good or bad idea influences which side of the argument one is on.
There appears to be adequate compensation in the Clean Energy Bill to offset consumer disadvantage.

It is important that one uses more sources than Andrew Bolt's blog to inform ones self on this debate.

Cheers
BH

[flyingfox]

Typhoon650. This is a 'Press report' as the language used will clearly attest. The finding may be significant or may be 'just another factor'. Any data gathered by NASA will be added to the scientific information available and the current position will be adjusted accordingly. The report was not a scientific conclusion. Your "I'll just leave this here" remark doesn't show that you are capable of 'critical thinking'. One press release and your all done and dusted. Hope your not a pilot with such 'scatter brain' reasoning!

[flyingfox]

AA. Well if we can keep our way of life protected, if not somewhat modified, I expect that your $2500 will be money well spent. I believe European countries are doing roughly the same thing. The USA isn't yet. (What a surprise!) I watched a film called 'Bag It' during the week about plastics in the environment. It was amazing to see how US plastics manufacturers spent millions on lobbying law makers to preempt any restrictions on their trade. Don't wait for the good'ol USA to lead the world when there is a problem. (I'm not anti USA. Just stating how they are not leaders in some fields because of their fraught politics.) We all have to do our own bit. If that means losing a 'competitive edge' for a few moments, then so be it.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by Tyhpoon650

I'll just leave this here. You know, for those who browbeat everyone with their interpretation of "science" and the "OMG greenhouse, we're gonna die" worshippers/guilt ridden baby boomers:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

You'd probably be well advised to check the facts on that (and in particular look at what the Heartland Institute does) before you go cutting and pasting things which purport to blow "gaping holes" in decades of genuine scientific research.

One of the common problems we see with "fake" sceptics, ie people who think they're genuine sceptics but actually haven't studied the real scientific research like a serious sceptic would, is that they're prone to latching onto things which confirm their political bias but don't stand on any solid scientific ground.

Genuine scientists with many years of qualifications and research showed that the paper you highlighted was seriously flawed after it was published. So much so that the editor of the journal was so embarrassed that he subsequently resigned. Naturally this was all part of the global scientific conspiracy to those who are that way inclined.

The paper you link to has been variously described as "garbage" and numerous other things. Far from just calling it names, other scientists have demonstrated very fundamental errors in the paper. For example, the "climate model" used by the sceptics hero Dr Roy Spencer has been shown to be grossly over-simplified. Also he was shown to use variable values in his formulae which had no resemblance to earthly reality. It was shown to be badly flawed on both a scientific basis, and a mathematical basis.

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you want to consider yourself as a sceptic, you should at least understand the details of what you're looking at.

[43Inches]

Hey, and anyone who latches onto carbon as the reason for global warming has some real issues... the reality is due to other factors global temperature anomalies will climb more than 10 degrees in the next couple of hundred years... now you all have some real issues to contend with. If i'm wrong ok, if not...

[flyingfox]

Go on 43Inches! Decode your post for us!

[Sunfish]

1. You won't even notice the carbon tax.

2. The sceptics arguments about Global warming mirror Bart Simpson:

I Didn't Do It, Nobody Saw Me Do It, There's No Way You Can Prove Anything! - YouTube

3. Unfortunately it is happening and the results will not be good as far as we can tell.

The latest evidence is from a research project set up by skeptics!

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

[bekolblockage]

blackhand

A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy

In what way will the current mechanism do that? As a producer I pay the carbon tax and pass on the extra cost to the consumer. As a consumer, the Government has decided it will compensate me so that I'm not out of pocket so am happy to pay the extra cost.
Where's the incentive for either side to do anything?

Sunfish

1. You won't even notice the carbon tax.

Again, so what is the point then? Neither will the producer.

[blackhand]

In what way will the current mechanism do that? As a producer I pay the carbon tax and pass on the extra cost to the consumer. As a consumer, the Government has decided it will compensate me so that I'm not out of pocket so am happy to pay the extra cost.

The concept is that as the price per tonne increases, the cost of alternate energy becomes less than the existing coal fired power stations.
The Clean Energy Bill encompasses more than just the Carbon Price, and perhaps some of those parts of the Bill would assist in clean air technology better than the Carbon Price.

In this discussion I am on the side of the planet - but to the anthropogenic influence on the 1.0 degree increase in average temerature in the last 150 years I am not sure.
Cheers
BH

[bekolblockage]

Sorry, I'm not sure that answers my question.

Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking?

[De_flieger]

Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking?

The producers that adapt their production methods to release less carbon dioxide, consume less energy or burn less fuel will have a lower carbon tax bill, which can reduce their overall costs relative to a competitor who doesnt make those changes. They may either then reduce the prices charged for their goods/services, giving them an advantage over their competitors in the market, or keep their prices the same and make an increased profit margin, which has its own set of advantages for the business and potentially shareholders.

[blackhand]

@bekolblockage
De Flieger explanation is correct.
Historicaly, commercial imperatives forced the western world to move from horse power to mechanical power; that imperative being the need to increase production.
There is no commercial imperative to move to the next energy source, so the government is creating one.

The compensation package seems to be a political move, to stop the bogans whinging.
Cheers
BH

[bekolblockage]

Nice in theory.

My Chinese colleagues here in HK look at me and laugh and say, "you gweilos are so naive".

[blackhand]

Nice in theory.

And is a theory yet to be tested, which is of concern.
The consequences of the Durban Conference not increasing or even keeping the Kyoto Protocol limits will leave Australia exposed to influx of goods far cheaper than that can be produced in Aust. Also will impact on Australia's exports, but maybe not primary resources.

As for your friends in Honkers, my rent is cheaper, my food is cheaper, and it is cheaper to educate my kids in Aust than Honkers. Naive but happy.

[De_flieger]

Bekol (should that be Mr Blockage?), Im curious as to their reaction. Is this the same China that according to that hotbed of green-left/communist propaganda that is The Australian is planning their own emissions trading scheme? Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
While I dont doubt that China produces a large amount of greenhouse gas, they are taking steps to reduce it or at the very least slow the rate of increase of emissions, and investing heavily in renewable energy and their sustainable cities programs.

[bekolblockage]

I have no argument with the objective.
It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens. That is what my Chinese colleagues roll their eyes at. They, probably better than anyone, know what human nature is like when it comes to this typical bob-each-way approach, hoping that someone will do the right thing.

[Towering Q]

DutchRoll....thankyou for your concise, well-reasoned and informative contributions to this thread.

I also notice that you have managed to keep your remarks non-emotive and have avoided "playing the man, and not the ball."

Pity the same can't be said about the contributor who labelled you a "true believing zealot".

As much as it pains me to quote Alan Jones, he was right on the money when he made this comment...(even if he is one of the worst offenders)

"name-calling is the province of those who can't sustain an intellectual argument."

[blackhand]

It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens.

The Government has advice contrary to that, it is readily available if you haven't already seen it.
You could be correct in your prediction.
Economists are rarely correct in their "predicted" outcomes.

Cheers
BH

[evyjet]

Jeez wake up sheeple!

It's a con! More tax, and another avenue for the big players to play with the trading scheme, bundle and confuse with another derivatives type scheme and make shed loads of money!

We the small people will YET AGAIN be donating more of our meagre salaries to them.

I'm all for making the environment cleaner, but the way this is being implemented is crazy!