Victims of carbon policies - the poor

They do, good work, but while they are growing, hundreds of years, new growth is preparing to take their place. It's the natural process, the cycle of life. We can destroy a hundred years of forest growth in a few months, HOW IS THAT HELPING?

 

Well, actually it would be a big help because old forest or old trees are net co2 emitters not co2 absorbers. Once they go, new growth is a far greater co2 absorber. I seem to remember reading somewhere that you would have to cut your forests down every 30 years to maintain maximum co2 absorbtion. But that would cause a problem because what are you going to do with all the wood? Can't burn it or let it rot because that would just put the co2 back again. But personally I think we have cut down enough forest. I would strongly support a move completely banning the cutting of old growth forest, we have cut too much already. If we want wood we should plant trees for that purpose.

 

I am not the person who tried to pretend to be the consummate intellect, correcting the opinion of another with attempt at insult, that would be the pretend university graduate...

I am not also the person who tried to point out how wrong the comment was (which you show is not) with insult and conjecture that is obviously WRONG.

I am also NOT the person who decided to attack a comment and poster when NOTHING was directed or asked upon you.

So I would suggest the onus is on YOU to make an intelligent response, which seems lacking here. So far you have not been able to back your claim but want to change it with more insult and you cannot even answer the question of your claim...

No, I think "Before one comments on a statement, one should be aware of what they are saying. Perhaps the best question is do you actually use the grey matter you retain between the ears." So far you haven't got either right...

 

Point is, the Carbon Tax was a package with compensation, pension increases, compensation for lower income earners, compensation for business, raising tax free threshold, as well as all the direct spending on reducing emissions. Once it was to be floated, the price would have dropped dramatically, and the compensation would have dropped dramatically as well. Over the very long term, the price would eventually pass the cost of the tax, but that would likely take decades given the low European price.

Direct action raises no money, it's just another expense from the same diminishing revenue base, and things like the $6 or $15 co-payment for gp visits will actually hurt the poor. No it won't increase above what is budgeted.

Also I find it hilarious that you're defending the government choosing emissions reductions methods like this soil sequestration nonsense, which even if it does work at their hilariously low price, is extremely limited and can be easily undone by future farming.

Yes, they were being compensated for more than they were negatively affected. People earning less than $18k per year no longer had to even file income tax as a result of the carbon tax.

No on "really" knows until they look back on it in hindsight, obviously. It's based on the overwhelming majority of economists and actual experts. I'm surprised you think it will work.

A couple of hundred dollars to build a small biogas digester in a developing country can save tonnes of wood being burned extremely inefficiently, huge numbers of people do this all over the world, these are "real emissions". There is huge potential for low cost ghg emissions reductions in developing countries, not to mention it will drastically improve the lives of some of the poorest people in the world at the same time.

Spending loads of money on expensive technologies like solar and wind through subsidies and tariffs, etc, is what drives up energy prices, which is what has happened in Europe.

The "eradication of the poor", is hyperbolic fantasy. Australia's carbon tax, which is still in place, did not "eradicate the poor".

 

Firstly (and I do accept your premise that compensation was made) while compensating the poor in one hand they took in the other. Such as stated raising the tax free threshold but removing low income benefit completely from the tax... This affected many as they gained an extra $250 odd a year but lost $1500. Secondly, the carbon tax scheme was different in many ways to the European model. So comparing the price to that model is deceptive and irrelevant.

Yes, it does not raise any money but it also does not put stress on industry to procure money to pay for abatement that actually does nothing to reduce emissions. And where does that money come from the people quickly pricing them out of the essential services so needed... While direct action can be accrued from other areas even targets taxes on rich or industry.

I am not defending the government over sequester or abatement in fact I find any government, body or person who attempts to say that they can abate or sequester while increasing emissions is only trying to deceive everybody to gain finances from the people. As in ALP/Greens policy.

I think you had better look that one up again... But suffice to say, I have already shown where you are trying to suggest anybody who is not on welfare is not poor...

I believe the example of Howard achieving a 7% reduction in REAL emissions through simple policy change is good example. NOT with any new taxes and not costing billions. That was pretty easy for them and sure getting more will cost more. BUT here is the drum, while the ALP/Greens were building their scheme modelling showed that they needed to reduce or abate emissions of 642million tonnes by the year 2020 of the 2010 emissions to reach the target agreed. BUT as modelling also showed emissions would actually increase by 649 million tonnes by 2020 meaning they would need to abate nearly 1300m tonnes at cost to Australian people. BUT not only that they intended to regulate so only 20% of that abatement was to occur in Australia with 80% procured from overseas sources which Gillard herself had already told India and Vietnam would receive their share of Australian money. That included with the $10billion Australia signed up for to the UN how do you think that will filter down???

I really don’t know why I have to tell you the previous I have already posted this to you before, with the evidence to prove it…

The difference is that Abbott's plan proposes to directly reduce emissions which in turn directly reduce the amount that needs abatement to achieve the agreed goal. Hence the abatement cost is cheaper... ALSO No cap has been placed on where the abatement can occur, meaning it is possible to abate ALL the CO2 emissions in Australia...

I think the point is that once the policy is announced, if it does directly address emissions with plausible action then it is possible to make long term REAL reductions cheaper than with a system that simply allows speculators and movement of finances off Australian shores. Which is cheaper??? Yes nobody really does know, but safe to say if you achieve REAL reductions and not simply pretend reductions it will be cheaper in the long run.

Yes and that is something that Abbott government can address while the ALP/Greens give no incentive for industry or people to do so because they want that couple hundred dollars to do it for the developing countries. The fact is what you point to is a form of direct action...

Exactly, and the carbon tax is simply another tariff. And here in Australia the government has decided that you can put solar on your house but you must sell it to power companies and buy their power. In Australia unless you are completely isolated it is illegal to be self-sufficient...

No, it hurt them big time, BUT the point is the stickler to the previous governments plans of creating taxes, growing costs and simply syphoning of as much money as they could to pay for their screwed up idea of how things should happen, is the POOR. When people try telling me that the poor are better off because of a blanket tax they have to pay I just wonder what planet they live on. It is obvious they would rather eradicate the poor so they can jam their own ideals upon the world.

You must remember though, I am supportive of this scheme at present without the full knowledge of what it is. Should it not have decent mechanism to address REAL emissions I will oppose it as well. So instead of simply going with the media speculation, as many have, I will wait to find out myself before I condemn it or actually support it. As you can see here, IF (and I say IF) the policy does what it is supposedly intended to do, Address REAL emissions and not simply buy a tree in India to say I can pollute more then I will support it. However, I would rather support a scheme that actually promotes BETTER ideas and changes in how energy is sourced rather than simply shuffle paper and money…

Oh and another thing about the ALP/Greens policy. HOW can buying an existing tree (you know save the tree) abate current emissions down??? If the tree exists while you are emitting then your abatement cannot logically mean a thing. This is what the ALP/Greens scheme was doing. The only way you can abate emissions is to plant NEW trees and those are the ones that will really mean any difference to the emissions your currently producing. SO in actual fact, the scheme did NOTHING at all… but those great blind supporters lapped it up. EVEN DV with his comment that saving trees is reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. FACT IS stopping the tree being cut down is only abating INCREASE if that tree was cut down…

 

Wrong wrong wrong....
The carbon tax is a good tool to reduce emission, whether you like it or not.
Why are you voting against simple logic?
In modernizing the way we create and use power, we use less emissions - simple, for most of us that is...
Cheerio

 

Simplistic actually. Didn`t you read any of the links in the OP?

 

I try to keep it that way especially for you......

 

The Carbon tax was always intended to be floated in 2015, when it would link up with the international market, and was expected to fall drastically because of the European price.

The Carbon Tax package raised revenue, and compensated the poor (and everyone else) for the price increases caused by the carbon tax. It was a policy package that was self contained. Where as the direct action policy has to be funded without creating any new revenue, aka cutting services.

The purpose of the carbon price was to steer medium-long term investment decisions in the energy industry.

Carbon tax was a tax on industry, carbon intensive industries, the top 500 dirtiest companies.

Sure, you could pay for anything by just taxing the rich.

Carbon tax hasn't priced people out of "essential services", come on.

It's not illegal to be "self sufficient" in Australia, no one is stopping you going off grid, as far as I'm aware.

I'm not arguing about the carbon tax figures again.

Abbott's not going to "directly reduce emissions" any more than the carbon tax. He just wants to abate it into the soil and plant trees with his "green army". The "direct action" policy funding is significantly less than the clean energy finance corporation and clean energy funds from the carbon tax which were specifically for direct investment in clean energy technology and direct emissions savings.

You've just said you don't know anything about the policy, so why on earth are you defending it?

The cap is on the money.

The policy was announced ages ago.

What is the point of spending huge amounts of money to reduce emissions in Australia, when you spend pennies overseas and reduce emissions by the same amount? Might as well say it's cheaper to manufacture things in Australia than in China. It's total nonsense. Business will work out what's best for them.

Oh yes, everyone who supports the GST or the carbon tax wants to eradicate the poor, good one garry.

Trees do grow garry, they absorb carbon over a life time. You might as well say, cutting down a forest makes no difference to atmospheric co2.

Slowing down deforestation is important for a variety of reasons. But I'm pretty sure that under Kyoto forests do not count as abatement. If forests did, then Australia would obviously be screwed because we have so many huge bushfires.

 

Why???

Why is the carbon tax a good tool to reduce emissions when emissions are expected to increase while abating the emissions??? Using logic how does buying existing trees abate any emission???

Instead of just selectively reading posts you should read the entire thing and address the points made. Instead of just spouting your religious fervour and expecting everybody to bow to your ignorant will. Because comments from the incredulous do not refute any comments when made without substance...

 

A carbon tax would not even be needed if environmentalists would stop promoting the building of more coal-fired plants with their absolute, stupid and foolish blocking of the almost 100% CO2 free (and radiation free in operation) nuclear plants. Those same fools are blocking fracking which would give US more natural gas than any nation in the world. Natural gas as a car fuel emits much less CO2. BTW coal emits 100s of thousands of tons of Thorium & Uranium into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Because of ignorant lefty, mind-numbed, self righteous environmentalists not only are we going backward in energy production but we are making people pay more for the utter stupidity of the environmental regulations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...yl-are-so-safe-that-we-should-all-go-nuclear/

 

Yes, the carbon price was a package that was introduced but on floating the price was set to slightly rise. NOW they compare the European market price of carbon and try to say Australia will travel the same way. As pointed out, Australia’s scheme was far different and allowed what is called speculation on the open market. Due to restrictions of how abatement would be achieved according to the modelling from treasury price would increase to a considered outside of up to $60 per tonne or at least $30 per tonne. Simply saying it is linked to the European scheme is fabrication to allow the gullible to believe they are supporting global scheme. So the fact is, while the Europe scheme (which again is different) has lower price due to demand Australians system was expected to INCREASE by the Governments own modelling.

As for compensation, I guess you missed the point that they also removed many low income supplements to fund their scheme which to me makes the scheme far from self-sufficient.

Actually, I do wonder what the government intention was. The scheme once floated is a breeding ground for corruption with regulation of abatement and licencing of industry that would be acceptable only by appointment from the government. The idea that only the 500 dirtiest companies pay this tax is extremely naive. The tax is paid by the consumer...

Yes it has, perhaps you should examine the number of people who are applying for assistance to pay for essential services. Plus, I am aware of several people who have allowed their services to lapse because they cannot pay for it. Personally, I am aware of 5 people who have died in house fires due to disconnection of power so light are by candle. Sorry personal experience tells me different than simply sticking my head in the sand.

Try it, let us know how you get on.

I know, you couldn't oppose the governments figures before so I do not expect you to do so now.

Firstly the policy is supposed to provide direct action on emissions while abating excess. How can you say it is not going to reduce emissions??? Or is that simply quoting the party who tells the world that the recommendations of the productivity commissions is the budget???

Secondly, 50% of the carbon tax was supposed to be for compensation of impact of the tax, stated that the rest would cover ALL other expected expenses which left very little for investment in anything...


Thirdly, I defend the policy because I see the alternative that is hurting the poor and simply funding government waste. It does NOTHING to reduce emissions or move to better technology because the companies who are taxed simply pass it on. IF there was a reasonable alternative existing then some argument could be made but there is not.

Really??? So tell us WHY nobody actually knows the details??? Much has been said about what the policy will do, but the policy has only been put to white paper last week. So tell us what was the policy that was introduced AGES AGO???

I don't know what you’re on about. Are you saying that the ALP was NOT capping where the abatement is??? If so, perhaps you should have told Penny Wong in 2010 that she misled the house because during debate she answered Greens senator question about protecting food manufacturing areas from a more lucrative investment of tree plantations. She categorically stated that the government was going to cap national abatement to 20% by regulations and licencing TWICE...

They are the bug in the bonnet of this entire issue. At least the GST removed taxes which reduced the impact but still affected the poor more.

Trees do grow. BUT if this issue of rising carbon emissions is so serious that needs BILLIONS spent around the globe to reduce emissions then if you build have a new power plant creating 200t a year, are you suggesting that by buying a piece of paper that has a 20year old tree will not be cut down then your only emitting 199t a year??? With abatement of 1tonne??? As the tree already existed then your 200t is not abated at all. THE only difference that is supposedly made is that if you cut down a tree then according to the abatement you would be emitting the equivalent of 201t. Abating NOTHING.

Australia scheme makes NO differentiation of existence or new on the international stage. There is no requirement for overseas abatement to be made of NEW trees. The scheme made NO provisions to ensure that the trees used to abate the scheme were saved as Gillard pointed stated that it is international commitment which can only be overseen by those governments involved at the national level. THERE IS SO MUCH WRONG WITH THIS SCHEME...

AND the people who are hurt the most are the POOR.

 

AND the people who are hurt the most are the POOR.

Hello,
you still don't get it?
They will become the big losers one day, as the only way to keep us afloat and progressing is to move forward.
Develop and invent new things, also on the renewable front there are millions of things which can be improved.
If we do so, and are able to sell our knowledge, we will be able to look after our POOR.
If not, we are all doomed them as well as us....
regards

 

I don't get it??? So it is ok to hurt the poor because the YOU wish to progress??? Really, do you have to continue to show your pretender status ALL the time???

The fact is the small amount of funding out of a tax that was going to promoting renewable energy sources that are inefficient methods and NOT replacement for current methods. Methods due to inefficiencies that costs far greater than current methods which in turn is detrimental to the POOR.

NO FUNDING was raised to find better methods, or study methods that may be more appropriate for Australia’s demands. Fact is most of the funding was put to government agencies and NOT to create new methods.

The fact is, you are saying it is fine to commit an entire generation of poor people to their plight without future of opportunity or support. Apparently it is fine by you because it is NOT you, isn't that right???

Tell me, apparently the economy running great at the moment, isn't it??? Aren't you complaining that Abbott lied about how bad the situation is??? BUT here you say that a carbon tax is the only way to progress forward... "as the only way to keep us afloat and progressing is to move forward"

Basically, your comment seems to be based upon your wish to eradicate the poor so you can look after them in the future because you believe there is no other way... REALLY, who does not get it??? Perhaps if you lived in the shoes of the poor you might just change your opinion, but really all I see is that pretence to think of others when all you want to do is impress your own values upon everybody else no matter how skewed they are...

 

It was expected to rise, before the EU market crashed. Then it was expected to drop to about $10 once floated, and then gradually increase over time as the EU price recover.

The Carbon Tax compensation was funded by the Carbon Tax. Any other tax changes were to pay for other things, and yes they spent too much money.

The tax was on the top few hundred highest emissions businesses, that's just a fact. Of course the cost is paid by the consumer, who are given money back by the government. This is the whole point of the scheme, to create a price difference between high emissions and low emissions products and services to create a long term trend in favour of low emissions businesses.

Oh yes, everything is a breeding ground for corruption, just like all the businesses ripping people off and blaming the carbon tax.

I have plenty of personal experience, it's just different from yours, funny how that works isn't it?

What I said is, that it is extremely unlikely to meet its own 5% reductions targets, and that includes abatement. I couldn't care less what the ALP say about the policy.

I believe there was around $14 billion between the clean energy finance corporation and the other fund, which I can't remember the name of now. Compared to the Coalitions $2.5 billion over 4 years. Yes, that was around 50% of the revenue. If that was "very little for investment", then what does that make the Coalitions policy? Anyway I'm pretty sure the Coalition has already abolished those funds, and they intend to backdate the Carbon Tax once they abolish it, during a "budget emergency" no less.

By "the bloke", do you mean Tony Abbott?

The whole point of the carbon price is to create a price on carbon... really I don't know how much more simple it can be explained than that. It was a long term policy, every economist and their mother says it would be the lowest cost way to reduce emissions long term. So if you actually wanted to reduce emissions with the least cost impact, then that is what you would support.

Of course we won't know 100% of the detail until the bills actually get passed by the senate, and? There is plenty of information already released about the policy, the white paper is just another in the long line of drip feeding, it's not like the government is going to pull a cold fusion rabbit out of its hat.

I find it hard to believe that Wong "categorically" stated anything about the Carbon Tax in 2010, when the policy was formed by the multi-party committee on climate change in 2011, and Wong was not Climate Change Minister and not part of that committee.

You keep going on about this buying trees thing. You could get a bit of abatement through forest management projects and whatnot, reducing fire risk, reforestation, things like that. At a reduced rate due to the risk of reversal. What you couldn't do, is just buy a piece of land with a tree on it, and get a carbon credit because you own a tree.

There were plenty of things wrong with the Carbon Tax, just not the crap you keep banging on about. Really it should have died with Rudd in 2009.

It will never happen now anyway.

 

Giving people less money with which to do R&D to reduce emissions makes so much sense the way you explain it

We should say "No more carbon output above this level or we fine the lint out of your pockets and possibly put you out of business today," not "Well you can put out all the carbon you want if you pay a tax on it" if you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, not that it will make a bit of difference.

 

I think the point is made that they had no idea what would happen they just hoped it worked out. The problem is that when you allow speculation by investors then the price is artificially raised, the EU scheme does not allow speculators.

Well now, let us think about that entire comment for one minute... 50% was allocated for compensation, 40% (if you look at the government figures) is earmarked for corporate compensation leaving only 10% of the compensation for the poor... MMM, makes me think that you don't really know what poor means... You say low income earners were overcompensated yet only 10% of the tax was used to compensate them. At what level do you consider a low income earner is???

Yes, but making policy where government decides who can do this or that is not just like businesses ripping people as it allows government to choose who is able to be an investor and reap rewards for such. I just don't see why people are so willing to allow such corruption then pretend to condemn it... All one has to do is look at the ICAC investigations at the moment. What are they about??? Politicians, corruptly granting contracts and licences for themselves for financial benefit... Really, DON"T complain about the politicians being corrupt if you’re so willing to allow it to go on..

No, what is funny is that you make a statement that something is not happening NOW and it is plastered all over about how it actually is...

Oh, I apologise, but no if it is only 5% they need to achieve then it is not extremely unlikely. As stated previously, Howard achieved 7% and nobody really noticed. Now it is going to cost the earth to meet 5%??? Now while the funding has been capped (which I gather makes you believe the unlikelihood) that is only for the start. The policy has to 2020 to meet that target and should REAL emissions be dropped then cost of abatement is less. Again that is as long as plausible efforts are made to address REAL emissions and not simply sleight of hand.

Well the fact is the Clean energy finance corporation was funded to find private funding for projects and NOT fund them themselves your belief would be considerable off what is really happening. If I stuck to your figures, you would found to be wrong. The clean energy fund was no were near $14B their share is not 50%, the compensation package is 50%. The Clean energy corporation has supposedly sourced $14B worth of private funding for renewable projects as the claim by the ALP. Very few of the projects are actually happening which again the ALP blames Abbott for. If they were projects that could stand alone (as claimed) why are they stopped when government funding is removed from the public sector whose only job was to make connections (as claimed by the ALP)???

No, I mean the greens senator who asked the questions twice of Wong.

So why is it that treasury modelling states that in the long term emissions will rise???

If your cluey enough you will know what the policy is when it is put to house of representatives before it goes to the senate. The policy you think is direct action plan is not the policy it is a guide on intent of the policy with broad outline of how they intend to operate the policy. NOTHING in that media release shows direct action and that is the part that is needed to be seen. Abatement is not direct action… The white paper is not simply another line of drip feeding, I really do wonder if you know how the parliamentary system works.

So??? Do you contend that this is the first time the ALP tried to introduce any schemes???

That remains to be seen, for reasons I pointed out. Again abatement does not reduce emissions and the emissions are supposedly the critical problem. If you abating emissions while allowing them to grow, then you simply deceiving the public for financial benefit. Who gets hurt the most??? The poor.

It should have died with Rudd, but it did not.

 

You couldn`t be bothered reading any of the links in the OP? Really? You can never promote an agenda by remaining ignorant of the negative effects of your agenda. I`m reminded of the archetypical hard line door to door salesman of the 50`s. All push and shove, just a simple spiel, never acknowledging any negative aspects of his product.

 

If we stay tuned, develop technologies we will have a future.
In that future money will be there, for the POOR. Simple.
If we don't look forward, we will fall behind (we are actually right now) and the future will look very pale, with less and less jobs in the making and no money left for those in need.
regards

 

The poor will never escape the corporate/government masters. "We" don't need money for the poor. The poor need more self-sufficiency from the "we"'s of the world.

 

We don't have any 'poor' in Australia. You can live handsomely on welfare. Why to you think so many risk their lives on boats to access our welfare system.

 

If we don`t think plans out properly, people will be hurt, especially poor people. Lazy emotional "thinking" is the formula for disaster. No amount of technology can save anyone from a lack of common sense.

Before common sense can be effective, the truth has to be faced, and the truth is that thousands have already died due to poor planning and lack of common sense.

 

I agree, so the best is to get rid of Abbotts and let others do the job.....
We will certainly find some politicians with some sort of plans and common sense, which Abbott fails both.

 

Re this topic : You haven`t addressed the topic yet.

 

Just wrong. Taxes pay for education, health, policing, roads etc. These help the poor.

I agree.

I don't quite agree, but i used to. I'm not totally against your argument with the below caveat:
The carbon tax is a consumption tax - rich consume more than the poor (per capita). There was a story in the Brisbane Times about a bunch of millionaires in AUS who paid zero tax (oh, maybe 8c or something) - but they all had to pay GST and petrol taxes as they would have the carbon tax - it was the only way to get the bastards. The poor at least were compensated.