Softening the carbon tax

[Smurf1976]

The net effect on CO2 output will be: zero. Why is this, you ask? Those machines, those goods, those computers do not have to stay in Australia. Countries sans-economic-sabotage will make up the energy consumption shortfall.

I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.

 

[white_goodman]

The future health of us all have the vested interest.

Sometimes I wonder?

yes the emotional argument... I can say that most people objectively want a better world run by renewable energy and all that nice stuff you have a penchant for.. the means on getting there is by throttling the economy, reducing individual freedom and using bogus science to push an agenda, its an argument on the means not the objective

i still find it baffling how carbon which impacts the global climate 0.000002% is more powerful then say the Sun. But hey I must be a greedy capitalist pig, the left of society need to shove their idiotic ideals down the throats of the people who don't wanna stomach something so unintelligible..

 

[explod]

yes the emotional argument... I can say that most people objectively want a better world run by renewable energy and all that nice stuff you have a penchant for.. the means on getting there is by throttling the economy, reducing individual freedom and using bogus science to push an agenda, its an argument on the means not the objective

i still find it baffling how carbon which impacts the global climate 0.000002% is more powerful then say the Sun. But hey I must be a greedy capitalist pig, the left of society need to shove their idiotic ideals down the throats of the people who don't wanna stomach something so unintelligible..

Emotional you say. Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer.

Getting back to the many bits, peices and facits to climate change/global warming are in fact the bits and pieces that in individual examples in isolation in turn build the arguments to steer people away from knowing about and facing the real facts.

All of the evidence in its many parts make up the whole. To say, that because we had a wet summer, droughts have come to an end, is the rubbish put in the way of developing a more united spirit to finding solutions.

Having a carbon tax is at least a start on a raod that has to be taken together. Softening it will allow the dilly dally to take it away.

 

[Julia]

Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here. He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.

And this is what Governments do well - Propaganda.

Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....

....In a perfect world, a good government would make sure it’s people had all the useful facts, so they could decide where they wanted to put their resources.

In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Responses: Nearly all people thought it was “20% – 40%”, the highest said 75%, and the lowest estimated 2% – 10%.

Answer: 0.039% or about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Responses: All said ’No’ or they ‘couldn’t remember’.

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

Responses: Most estimated it to be 25% to 75%, and answers ranged up to 100%. Only four people thought it was 2 to 10%.

Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Responses: Ranged from 1% to 20%.

Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Responses: All but one thought it is a pollutant, at least to some degree.

Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.

Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Responses: Almost all did not know of any evidence. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)

The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’

I guess there are other ways to skin a cat

 

[tothemax6]

I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.

Well if you like we can extend it to the worst case scenario: China simply buys up all of Australia's resources, made capable by the massively depressed asset prices stemming from the economic strangulation, and allowed by the massively indebted Australian government in exchange for much needed immediate cash. The resources are then extracted at depressed Australian costs, and then sent to China, thus lowering the cost of fuels in China, thus allowing massive increase in energy consumption, thus much more CO2.

To save the planet for human life to live, expansionism will have to be reversed.

Softening of the tax is not the idea. Once started we will need to strengthen it.

Anyone who does not realise that we are in for huge change due population growth which is causing global warming is dreaming. We will need to reverse it very soon.

So cyanide in the reservoirs then?

I'll remind you, that Europe, Japan, US, Australia, all have sub-replacement native birthrates. Their populations are only growing due to immigration from nations that are not in this way deficient. Population growth has nothing to do with carbon tax, only migration policies.

The tax should not be softened, it should never happen, and then existing taxes should be slashed. The 'softening' bit in the title of this thread regards individuals softening the damage the the government is going to do to them with this tax.

 

[white_goodman]

Emotional you say. Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer.

Getting back to the many bits, peices and facits to climate change/global warming are in fact the bits and pieces that in individual examples in isolation in turn build the arguments to steer people away from knowing about and facing the real facts.

All of the evidence in its many parts make up the whole. To say, that because we had a wet summer, droughts have come to an end, is the rubbish put in the way of developing a more united spirit to finding solutions.

Having a carbon tax is at least a start on a raod that has to be taken together. Softening it will allow the dilly dally to take it away.

it never ceases to amaze me how the socialist 'humanitarian' left of the community are quite willing to throw the individual and freedom under a bus for totalitarian control and heavy taxation for equality, rights for workers, green planet or any other emotional agenda upon which they dont understand the nuts and bolts...

what the FCUK has carbon got to do with anything?!

tax toxic waste or something that reduces air quality or something remotely related to pollution... its a tax grab that will never be repealed and only worsened, it amazes me how govt is seen as the big brother to look after society, it should be playing a role as umpire not provider from cradle to grave.

 

[Logique]

...Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer...

Must comment here Explod. Tell that to Kevin Long: http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html. He is a mechanical engineer, and has been studying climate change and sunspot activity for decades. I'd trust him over the bulk of those venal and mendacious neophytes at the IPCC.

Long says on his website that '..there is much evidence (including graphs and references below) to suggest that the currently diminishing SUNSPOT ACTIVITY is likely to trigger a Little Ice Age within a few decades..'.

He also says that while 2011-2012 is likely to continue wetter than average, there will afterwards be around 18 drier than average years, until another three-year wet period starting from 2028.

 

[Logique]

Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here. He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.

Yes brilliant from OzWaveGuy:

"...And this is what Governments do well - Propaganda.

Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....

....In a perfect world, a good government would make sure it’s people had all the useful facts, so they could decide where they wanted to put their resources.

In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Responses: Nearly all people thought it was “20% – 40%”, the highest said 75%, and the lowest estimated 2% – 10%.

Answer: 0.039% or about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Responses: All said ’No’ or they ‘couldn’t remember’.

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Responses: Most estimated it to be 25% to 75%, and answers ranged up to 100%. Only four people thought it was 2 to 10%.

Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Responses: Ranged from 1% to 20%.

Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Responses: All but one thought it is a pollutant, at least to some degree.

Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.

Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Responses: Almost all did not know of any evidence. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)

The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’

I guess there are other ways to skin a cat..."

(From OWG)

 

[explod]

Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here. He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.

I will pop over to the other thread to deal with your question Julia as a realise my rants here are a bit of topic.

In short, the public do not know, education spending has never been a high priority but it should be one of the highest. Most people, in my view, can no longer think for themselves and thereby make informed decisions.

The percentages of change in the athmosphere that do impact are small fractions. The ballance of nature is fragile in a longer term than the general publics attention span.

And the world would be a fairly blank page without creative idealists. I say that because a good inventor will come up with a good one in about 1 to 10.

 

[Julia]

what the FCUK has carbon got to do with anything?!

tax toxic waste or something that reduces air quality or something remotely related to pollution... its a tax grab that will never be repealed and only worsened, it amazes me how govt is seen as the big brother to look after society, it should be playing a role as umpire not provider from cradle to grave.

A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.

Monday evening, a caller asked the presenter to explain what a carbon tax was and how it worked. The presenter said he wasn't the person to ask but that he would find someone to come on and explain it.
OK, good.

Tuesday evening, he presents with much pride Mark Dreyfuss, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, so a Labor government stooge! There would have been dozens of reasonably neutral people he could have found.

OK, so the presenter says "What is the carbon tax"?

Answer from the esteemed Mr Dreyfuss: "It's simply a tax on pollution".

How utterly dishonest. It conveys to the naive listener the righteous notion that all those nasty exhaust fumes he sucks up in traffic every day and all that muck he sees in the air will soon all go away because this brave government is going to put a sensible tax on it so people just won't cause it any more.

I've duly sent in an email of complaint and a suggestion that we will be waiting for someone from the Liberal Party to also come in and give their own definition of the carbon tax.

 

[explod]

A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.

OK, so the presenter says "What is the carbon tax"?

Answer from the esteemed Mr Dreyfuss: "It's simply a tax on pollution".

How utterly dishonest. It conveys to the naive listener the righteous notion that all those nasty exhaust fumes he sucks up in traffic every day and all that muck he sees in the air will soon all go away because this brave government is going to put a sensible tax on it so people just won't cause it any more.

I've duly sent in an email of complaint and a suggestion that we will be waiting for someone from the Liberal Party to also come in and give their own definition of the carbon tax.

I'd have said it is a tax on pollution too. What do you think a carbon tax is Julia?

And naive listeners, some of us do rather feel we are more superior if you please. Probably why, as a leftie, I must be a bit dumb. And it also seems that if one does not agree one does not read the fine print of the other.

 

[shiftyphil]

Sails, I've never read the Sun Herald. Does it have a specific demographic/political bias?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.

(also, it's the Herald Sun.)

Ah, but it is becoming obvious that they intend to buy voters off, especially those in the lower income groups, by providing generous 'compensation'. How on earth does this make any sense if they are in fact attempting to change consumption behaviour?
What rubbish.

`
It makes sense because they are not trying to change consumption (although it may have some impact on consumption, the primary goal is to change the nature of the supply). Arguments based on "the compensation just defeats the purpose" are completely off base.

 

[luke256]

And the world would be a fairly blank page without creative idealists. I say that because a good inventor will come up with a good one in about 1 to 10.

Problem is politicians are not inventors. If 9 out of 10 major policies were to be a failure, then I think thats a pretty poor result for the leader of a country.

Politicians should be waiting for the 1 good invention/idea out of 10, and be ready to make best use of it. This government needs some balance. At the moment there is too much creative idealists and not enough common sense.

 

[Julia]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.

(also, it's the Herald Sun.)

Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused. And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.

`

It makes sense because they are not trying to change consumption (although it may have some impact on consumption, the primary goal is to change the nature of the supply). Arguments based on "the compensation just defeats the purpose" are completely off base.

Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc. Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.

Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.

 

[Knobby22]

Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.

That is why I like Ross Gittens - economist with the Age and the company Bluescope Steel's idea that we only tax at the source of the emmissions e.g. coal power power stations and use that money to give to the energy retailers directly so there is NO difference to the consumer price.

We would achieve the aims of encouraging gas fired and other altenative power sources without complex taxation policy and the social engineering associated with this.

The Greens hate this idea as they want ordinary consumers to suffer but this suffering will gain little. The big savings are to be made with dealing with the emmitters. Regulations could be used to limit public wastage of energy.

If the Libs and Labor worked together it could be done without Green approval. It would be for the good of the country and the world.

 

[shiftyphil]

Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused. And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.

It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.

This is a pictorial commentary on the quality of the Herald Sun. - http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/

Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc. Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.

I'm pretty sure that advice has been around for a while.

Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.

A lot of people still don't understand that a light switch has an off position for a reason.

 

[shiftyphil]

If the Libs and Labor worked together it could be done without Green approval. It would be for the good of the country and the world.

We went down that road already.

 

[Knobby22]

We went down that road already.

Your replies to Julie and me are negative and nonsensical. Try to stay on the subject.

 

[sails]

It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.

This is a pictorial commentary on the quality of the Herald Sun. - http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/

That's a pretty biased account, Shiftyphil, and not what is actually inside their papers...

Here is a lengthy Herald Sun article on Windsor and Oakeshott and the anger of their respective electorates over the carbon tax:

Tax betrayal haunts Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott

Julia, the online version of the Herald Sun can be found here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/

And Andrew Bolt has his blog at the Herald Sun website which is probably one of the big reasons the lefties don't like it. I understand that Bolt used to work for labor.: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 

[shiftyphil]

Your replies to Julie and me are negative and nonsensical. Try to stay on the subject.

It's the truth - there was an agreement in place between Labor and the Coalition for a CPRS, and it was then blocked by the Liberals in the Senate. Labor has no expectation that they won't do the same thing, so their is little chance that another agreement would happen.