Some Dude - that's it from me. All been discussed. Not being drawn in any further into nitpicking and splitting hairs. Goodnight.
The Conversation said:The proposed carbon pricing policy in Australia is now routinely referred to as a "carbon tax" by both government and opposition. This is odd, because the proposed scheme is not actually a tax.
How does an ETS work?
It seems reasonably likely that Australia will, sooner or later, end up with an emissions trading scheme (ETS) for CO2. An ETS works by setting a cap on emissions and requiring emitters to hold a permit for each tonne of CO2 that they emit. The level of the cap determines the number of permits available. If emitters don’t already hold a permit, they must either cut back on their emissions or buy a permit from another emitter, who must then cut back. This means that a cost is imposed on emissions, equal to the price of buying or selling a permit. But importantly it’s not actually the price that causes the overall cuts in emissions. The cap determines the level of emissions, and the required cuts in emissions cause the price. That is, permits have a value because they allow you to avoid making cuts in emissions.
How does this differ from a carbon tax?
A carbon tax is sort of the opposite. A cost is added to all emissions, equal to the level of the tax, and this causes people to cut back. There is no cap on emissions in a tax-based system. People are free to emit as much or as little as they like, but if they do emit, they must pay the tax. Unlike an ETS, under a carbon tax it is the price that determines the level of emissions.
The Conversation said:Where is Australia in all this?
The system the Australian government is currently proposing to move to in the medium term is a standard ETS, not a carbon tax. But in the short term, there is a twist. The proposal is to fix the price of permits for the first few years, presumably to reduce uncertainty during the transition period after the scheme commences. It would still be an ETS, with a cap on emissions and permits that can be traded, but the price of permits would be fixed by the government. There is a similarity between the fixed-price ETS approach and a carbon tax. If the fixed price is set at a high enough level, then it would be that price, rather than the cap, that determines the level of emissions. At that high carbon price, people would actually emit less than the maximum level set by the cap. In that case, the ETS would be behaving somewhat like a tax.
But there are still important differences.
In the government’s proposed scheme, permits could still be traded among emitters and potential emitters, even in the period when there is a fixed price. That does not occur under a carbon-tax regime.
Indeed. Did we break the server because the flak has suddenly stopped? lol.
Actually the flak was coming from you and Dude trying to prove that Gillard is not a liar, by the use of semantics. You failed.
I don't know about flying fox but I wasn't trying to prove she doesn't tell lies and I suspect that neither was flying fox. I think Julia, Tony, Kevin, Malcom, everyone lies. Simply that in this case, it is not the lie that people claim it is. The only person who tried to assert that someone hasn't lied was MrBurns about Tony Abbott, something I find that simply reinforces the idea that MrBurns is not interested in what is true.
I don't know why the people are so worried, it's not like there isn't plenty of valid criticism on this and other topics to get your rage going. Why are you guys so scared of facts that contradict your narratives? Just change your narrative to incorporate what are ridiculously obvious facts for anyone who care about whether what they believe and communicate to others is true.
Don't you care whether public and easily available facts contradict what you tell others?
Actually the flak was coming from you and Dude trying to prove that Gillard is not a liar, by the use of semantics. You failed.
Is that all you care about? That you think you were right and everyone else is wrong?
Calm down, Flying Fox. Calliope simply pointed out what happened yesterday.
Sounds like you are trying to bait another argument.
Calm down, Flying Fox. Calliope simply pointed out what happened yesterday.
Sounds like you are trying to bait another argument.
However I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that dude and I are baiting arguments, save perhaps for the previous post, when all we have done is show proof and ask for it.
"Posters on the other side of the argument have relied on personal attacks....."Firstly, I apologise for letting my emotions get the better of me. I should have used my better judgement. However I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that dude and I are baiting arguments, save perhaps for the previous post, when all we have done is show proof and ask for it. On the other hand, posters on the other side of the argument have relied on personal attacks, stating that we are wrong and only that and asserting that their opinions are truth without providing any context or proof.
Flying Fox, you are usually reasonable and thoughtful in your discussions, and I've never before seen you join in a concerted attack on one person, viz in this case, Mr Burns, to the extent where - from the position of someone not engaging in this debate at present - it looks like outright bullying.
"Posters on the other side of the argument have relied on personal attacks....."
Flying Fox, you are usually reasonable and thoughtful in your discussions, and I've never before seen you join in a concerted attack on one person, viz in this case, Mr Burns, to the extent where - from the position of someone not engaging in this debate at present - it looks like outright bullying.
There has been an increasing viciousness recently in some 'discussions' where there is little evidence of genuine exchange of views, and rather a petty, nit picking, point-scoring display of quasi solipsistic sophistry.
I may be wrong and this might be the stuff of successful forums, but personally I find it nasty and counter-productive. It's the reason several good people no longer post here, people who used to make thoughtful and genuine contributions.
There has been an increasing viciousness recently in some 'discussions' where there is little evidence of genuine exchange of views, and rather a petty, nit picking, point-scoring display of quasi solipsistic sophistry.
Flying Fox, you are usually reasonable and thoughtful in your discussions, and I've never before seen you join in a concerted attack on one person, viz in this case, Mr Burns, to the extent where - from the position of someone not engaging in this debate at present - it looks like outright bullying.
.
I understand that, FF, and it doesn't seem unreasonable when thus expressed. Perhaps consider that a person's opinion has usually been formed over a period of time, from various inputs and observations. So, when asked to provide 'proof' of such an opinion (which I'm sure you'll agree is widely held across the community) I'm not quite sure what you'd be looking for? Perhaps examples like the balance of contributing journalists on "Insiders"?I am genuinely sorry you feel that way as you are among the few people on this forums who's views and discussions I genuinely value. This was not my intention at all. All I did was ask Mr Burns to back his opinion on why he thought the ABC was biased. His opinion was based on the fact that they posted a survey about workchoices and this did not include the affirmative no. When told that this is a balanced survey and usually these have limited choices for statistical reasons. He maintained his opinion without providing any proof.
Indeed you have and it's much appreciated.If I were to post my opinions that were contrary to other's and was trying to present these as fact's I would surely be and have been asked to back these up. In the cases I have been in error, I have sincerely apologised and retracted my opinion or presented it as such.
Absolutely do, FF, which is why I was so surprised at what seemed to me to be out of character participation in an argument that escalated so unpleasantly.My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone, especially yourself Julia. I don't know whether you count me in the group of good posters
I very much hope you'll reconsider such an inclination, FF, much as I can empathise with it.but at this juncture I will certainly be in the group of non-posters as I have neither the time nor the energy (or frankly inclination) to continue here.
I expect you're right, wayne. It would be good, however, if we could try to maybe counteract rather than copy the woeful behaviour of those who are supposed to be leading the nation or proposing to do so.Julia,
I think it just reflects the standard of interchange from our politicians (and system of civil law for that matter).... tribal, adversarial, fallacious.
The truth has become irrelevant.
Julia, you are correct and in my opinion things always start to go wrong when the discussion drifts from the topic at hand to those having the discussion. Someone will make an insulting remark about someone else, put words in someone else's mouth or otherwise make an unjustified personal attack on another participant in the discussion and from that point forward the chances of a constructive, useful debate occurring become virtually nil.
I would like to point out to everyone that it is possible to disagree and exchange ideas without insulting or making personal attacks on others. There is no good or justifiable reason to attack others personally because of their opinions. If you take issue with someone else's opinion then critique their opinion, not them personally. Good discussion and debate do not require insults.
To keep threads on topic, please report posts that start to make things personal because without fail that is when threads start to go wrong, and that is when action needs to be taken.
Although this post is in response to a point Julia made, it is addressed to everyone equally. Please avoid making things personal and you will find that the level of debate will rise and the discussion will be far more constructive and enjoyable for all.
I expect you're right, wayne. It would be good, however, if we could try to maybe counteract rather than copy the woeful behaviour of those who are supposed to be leading the nation or proposing to do so.
Joe, can I suggest the off-topic posts in the last 24 hours or so be removed from this thread? At least twice I posted a poll on the bias of the ABC which got completely swamped in the verbal gunshots. The argument had nothing to do with the ABC - might have started off that way but ended up nothing to do with it.
I logged in later in the evening and what I saw a very out of character frenzied gang like attack on MrBurns. I stepped in to give him support but couldn't believe the rudeness, nit picking and hair splitting that was going on. I think this whole miserable and unnecessary show of nastiness should be wiped off, imo.
I don't like reporting posts, but will do so in future if I ever see anything like that again - or even starting to happen.
EDIT - Joe, if posts are removed from here and you don't want them deleted, one suggestion is to shift them to the "carbon tax lie" thread" - just a suggestion but these comments don't belong in this thread, imo.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?