The carbon tax explained

Well let us get back to the subject of the debate carbon tax

For those, who believe the government is really trying, to use this tax to implement change, rather than just grab at revenue, should read what Garnaut has been saying, about the implementation of the tax.

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...or/story-e6frfmd9-1226023869289#ixzz1IGKV3qqj

So now, he has feels that our export community should get a free pass on this tax. This is a good thing, that would help to promote exports and aid the reduction of manufacturing costs to a degree. But at the Press Club it is stated

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...or/story-e6frfmd9-1226023869289#ixzz1IGRCCGiC

However, Garnuat also states

Followed by

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...rns-ross-garnaut/story-e6frf7l6-1226030427605

Do the maths, if you believe any of these statements to be roughly true. This policy needs total transparency for the real outcomes. It will be a big surprise, if this government can get this right, as it appears they have suffered several times, with an inability to co-ordinate their previous attempts to adequately manage monetary policies of the past.

Has anyone noticed that the magic figure of about twelve billion dollars seem to be bandied about a lot?

 

No. I don't think so.

You wrote:

in response to the simple fact that the planet is warming

I gave you one example (surface temperature measurements) of empirical data which shows us the planet is warming. There are many, many more examples - that is just one.

But you tell us:
You wrote:

You have now been asked - what? 4 0r 5 times to explain why you wrote that? And we have seen no explanation.

You are a parrot.

Polly want a cracker?

 

Actually, it hasn't been established as a fact.

It may be warming, for sure - I have an open mind on the subject.

However, no conclusive evidence exists to establish global warming as a 'fact'.

 

The Earth warms up and cools down in cycles.

How will a carbon tax clean our style of living up?

Or stop the natural cycle of the Earth!

What will they do with the money?

Will they invest it in research for alternate fuels?

Its a money grab and nothing more.

The carbon tax will be a new game for the rich on the stock exchange.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/green-tax-to-cost-868-a-year/story-fn7x8me2-1226032340602

 

Yep, always has. Even when there were no humans on the planet.

Magic?

Yet the AGW followers just can't see it.

Their gullibility is alarming.

 

I don't think dumping your fap folder in this forum is a very good idea.

Seek help, or refrain.

 

Yes is has been established as a fact that the planet has warmed in recent decades and I gave you just one example empirical measurements which show this is the case.

You claimed the measurements were "dubious". You gave us now explanation why you think this, nor did you provide any evidence whatsoever as to why you hold this opinion.

You are a closed-minded parrot:

Polly want a cracker?

 

Many things cause the earth's climate to change. Some of these are generally cyclic. Some are not.

By placing a price the pollution

The recent increase in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere that is impacting upon climate has nothing to do with "natural cycles" of the earth.

This is how the scheme should work. If it doesn't, it will be a very poor scheme

noted and ignored.

 

LOL

You need to stop reading your own press!

Oh and B-Bird - come on, everyone knows where the emails came from.

......unfortunately the current data does not support GW....

Was how it went.

 

Hi Dumb n Dumber,

One at a time in order. How will a carbon tax clean our style of living up?

Not my theory but the way it is supposed to work is that as the biggest polluters are hit with the carbon tax, the assumption is they will simply add that cost to the price of their goods. Right so far?

We are given compensation by the govt to cover that price increase, from the tax taken from those companies, right? Sounds pretty dumb so far right?

As the companies are hit again and again by the tax their goods start to become a lot more expensive than identical goods produced by greener energy etc. So the idea is the consumer stops buying the polluters goods which in turn forces them to either fold or change their methods of production. Got it?

How long it may take for such price differentials to start to make us decide what to buy is my question. I mean, if I like Mars Bars produced by coal energy users am I actually going to switch to something called Stars or whatever? And at what stage will I decide the Mars Bar is too expensive and try a Stars etc?

Coud be years by which time nothing changes until I do switch and enough others do too.

But that's the idea anyway. Consumer pressure is supposed to drive the companies desire to switch energy sources.

What they do with the money is give it to us to compensate for the price increases. They will focus more on the poorer in our community. They will also spend some of it on funding alternate energy source research development.

The idea, again, is the govt gets absolutely none of this money to keep.

It's not a money grab and carbon prices can't be on the stock exchange as it is not an entity such as a private company. So it can't be bought and sold on the stock market.

Companies that produce coal and oil created products will be though as will the newer companies which specialise in the newer energies. As it happens I bought some shares a couple of months ago in one such company. It did nothing, up and down a few cents. Until late last week when it jumped 25% in one day. The reason is that an oil company is bidding for a takeover of this company. Wonder why?

So, yes, gambling on the market will be a part of it all but isn't it always and hasn't it always been so? In itself it is irrelevant to the carbon issue though as this gambling makes no difference to the consumer who buys the products.

Will it work? Well it's a start, we've done nothing but talk so far. If we do get the balancing compensation I don't have a problem with it. If we don't , different story.

 

No - still don't know WTF are you on about. Neither do you I suspect.

 

I only have one question for your insight. What alternative energy sources can these companies change to?

Just on that, considering only about 7% ( a guess, since last official figures where 5%) of Australia's energy is produced by green energy, at this present time.

If the government did not get to keep half the money (as the great Garnuat has told people) what is it going to be spent on? You consider that market forces will bring the change, so it only can be assumed, that the government will not use this money to help.

This will take years to actually achieve the result you suggest but the government are only predicting that it will be in place for two or three years, moving to a carbon trading scheme after that. Without new alternatives, filling in the gap (which is not in place now) this is simply a tax grab, to aid the government to balance its budgets, for the expressed purpose, of trying to meet a promise of budget surplus by 2013. Many think this will be all debts paid and more money to spend on things. Unfortunately it only means, payments made on borrowed money and a little left over to bank.

There are too many questions unanswered, considering that much of Australia's trade is export, which will not be part of this new tax, where is the incentive for change?

sorry, that is several questions.

 

Gar,

This reply was meant for dumb n dumber, not for you to misinterpret.

I started essentially by saying it is NOT my theory, just attempting an explanation for dumb.

You attribute most of that theory to me and accuse me of defending it and making claims etc etc etc. As usual. Unable to read what is written you invent something and attack that. Which is actually your own idea. So you are attacking yourself as you didn't address my words at all.

As such the rest of your rant is worthless and deserves no response, except to repeat the government keeps none of this money. Read it and understand it. Last bit, if we don't do this and now we will not have anyone who will trade with us because we are not doing anything about carbon.

 

Must be why so many people die of CO2 poisoning near volcanoes.

 

more accurately, CO2 asphyxiation

CO2 is not toxic

stick your head under water for 10 minutes, see how you go

you're not saying water is toxic, are you?

 

Have you heard of water intoxication?

 

bad example ...

CO2 is not a toxin

 

At the end of the day what does it matter if it's toxic (it is) or isn't?

 

certainly have

that concerns an excess of water

an excess of anything will kill you

eat 10 cases of celery, see how you pull up the next day (if at all)

CO2 is not a toxin

water is not a toxin

celery is not a toxin

too much of any of them though, will kill you

CO2 is not pollution, it's quite simple

 

Does it suck being wrong so much?

 

AGW followers try to pass off CO2 as pollution; a toxin

it is not

it's just one of the many lies they perpetuate

it's indicative of their whole argument

 

i don't know; please enlighten us

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

 

ah, wiki

nice

your'e confusing CO2 with CO, perhaps

CO2 is causing no harm; it is not pollution

 

Science says you're wrong. Gee, who to believe, scientists with all their education, studies, knowledge, etc or you, some science denier on the internet?

What a tough decision.