Skip to toolbar

Aussies Living Simply

The Carbon Tax Debate

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 254 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #255316
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Hi Folks.

    The Carbon tax is a big topic and one that really does justify some discussion. We have, however had a few threads closed down already due to aggressive language, personal attacks etc. Given that this is such an important topic, I would like to give it one more go… but with some rules.

    According to many, the internet has killed off the art of reasoned debate. Instead we get my link is better than your link wars and all manner of bad behaviour when things get heated. I think (hope) that we are all grown up enough here to bring back the art of the debate and have a sensible discussion about this.

    So. Here are the rules (which I reserve the right to add to and modify at will… Its good to be the king)-

    You Shall –

    [ul]

    [li]Treat all members of the debate with respect, no matter how much their views differ from yours[/li]

    [li]Imagine that the people you are debating are actually real people, with real feelings and not some anonymous entity on the other side of the keyboard. In fact, imagine that they are sitting next to you at the same table, are 6 foot 6 tall, a champion heavyweight boxer and are well within punching distance of you nose. That’s how polite I want you to be[/li]

    [li]Back up your arguments with facts[/li]

    [li]Challenge the facts/arguments without making personal attacks[/li]

    [li]Do other the courtesy of actually reading and considering their post before firing off a reply.[/li]

    [li]Keep things polite and non-aggressive[/li]

    [li]Keep things on topic[/li]

    [li]Keep an open mind – after all, you may (heaven forbid) be wrong[/li]

    [/ul]

    You Shall NOT –

    [ul]

    [li]Personally attack other forum members or key figures in the debate who are not members of the forum no matter how wrong or stupid you think they are.[/li]

    [li]Indulge in link soup – if you want to reference something, quote the relevant passage in your post and add the link at the bottom as a reference. Posts consisting of “these links prove you wrong” followed by 10 or so links are not acceptable[/li]

    [li]Use inflammatory or insulting language.[/li]

    [li]Drag up off topic or irrelevant material to confuse and/or try to discredit others arguments[/li]

    [/ul]

    Posts breaking the rules will be deleted. If there are too many problems, this thread will go the way of the others and end up in the closed pile.

    Ok. Lets give this ‘debate’ thing a try. Over to you.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #500983

    All good, so far… :whistle:

    #500984
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    I am all in favour of any moves to reduce pollution, whether climate change is a reality or not. Having said that, the carbon tax will not actually reduce Australia’s emissions. As shown by Treasury modelling, emissions will not grow as quickly as they would without the tax, but we will still be pumping out as much CO2 in 2050 as we are right now – see the graph at the ABC news site. All of the alleged reductions claimed by the government are to be arrived at by the purchase of offshore carbon credits, not by actually reducing our emissions.

    So, I am ambivalent about this tax. In principle, it is a good thing, but only as a tiny first step. Someone, somewhere has to start the global ball rolling and perhaps our having implemented a system will tip the balance for some of our trading partners. I applaud Julia for having taken a risky political step, even if she was pushed into it by the Greens, but I am blowed if I can see any tangible reduction in CO2 output anywhere in the figures presented so far.

    I should add that I am not a Labor supporter usually, but I have lost patience with Abbot’s head-in-the-sand approach. The weight of science and economics is firmly on the side of an emissions trading scheme and I cannot visualise voting for the coalition if they keep up the current policy.

    #500985

    It will not lead to any reduction and for mine it will crucify the Labor Party at the next election. IMO it’s a blatant attempt at redistributing wealth, nothing more nothing less.

    When you pay out, as a Labor Government, billions to all and sundry, when reality sets in you somehow have to get it back. They’d have been better off being upfront and upping the GST by 50%!

    Cheers

    #500986
    Michael1973Michael1973
    Member

    This ‘tax’ will have zero impact on the level of pollution produced by the target companies. Their production levels will stay the same and they will pass on the extra cost to us. This is a blatant socialist wealth redistribution scheme driven by Bob Brown. He has Labour over a barrel and he is pushing his own agenda while Labour cops the backlash. I think this has been the end of the Labour party as a federal political force. They will now go the way of the democrats. And yes i am one of the many who will not qualify for any handouts to offset the tax cost because i support myself and dont take any goverment assistance.

    When i see Julia speaking on tv now it makes me embarrased to be an Australian.

    #500987
    Lady BeeLady Bee
    Keymaster

    Australia is not the first country to have a carbon tax, there are many other countries who have such a tax in one form or another.

    Finland was the first, in 1990. Other countries who have a carbon tax are The Netherlands, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, India.

    Whether Australia’s carbon emissions slow (or fail to increase as fast as they currently are) remains to be seen. But, at least someone is doing SOMETHING.

    Remember when GST came in – it was all doom and gloom and the country was going to fall to rack and ruin. It didn’t.

    Remember when petrol hit that psychological $1.00 per litre? It was all doom and gloom and the country would fall to rack and ruin. It didn’t. We are now paying over $1.40 a litre and no one whimpers about it.

    It doesn’t matter what any government does, there will always be people who complain. The general public is always reluctant to change. It has always been this way and always will be.

    Remember when slavery existed (well, no you’re probably not old enough) when segregation between black and white people was ‘the norm’. Rosa Parks made history when she dug her heels in and refused to give up her seat to a white person. The rest, as they say, is history.

    I wonder how we will look back on this period of our history in 20 years time.

    The carbon tax may NOT be the right thing to do, but it just might be the catalyst for a better way for our future.

    #500988
    GgangGgang
    Member

    Lady B post=317190 wrote:

    The carbon tax may NOT be the right thing to do, but it just might be the catalyst for a better way for our future.

    so true !!

    Michael I have to ask why dont you blame the companies for passing on the costs to the consumer instead of doing the right thing and lowering their emissions ? is this laziness or greed or maybe just a preverse act ………

    and then on the news this morning we have Abbott actively trying to sabotage investment in solar projects 👿 why would anyone support that ………

    there is too much party politics and finger pointing looking for a scapegoat and not enough caring about what is happening to the planet ……. Murdoch and his papers are a lot to blame …….. Abbott is only trying to create division to fulfil his personal ambition to be PM …….

    I am not only embarressed to be Australian I am absolutely ashamed

    #500989
    diannedianne
    Participant

    I am wondering if those who are against the carbon tax would be so against it if it was part of a package deal??

    If it was a starting measure, and then perhaps the funds from the tax used towards other things such as setting up major solar companies, reforestation, a progame to improve the soil carbon content ect. Would this make the tax more to your liking as oppossed to the money going to the govoment??

    :shrug:

    #500990
    BelBel
    Member

    dianne post=317199 wrote: I am wondering if those who are against the carbon tax would be so against it if it was part of a package deal??

    If it was a starting measure, and then perhaps the funds from the tax used towards other things such as setting up major solar companies, reforestation, a progame to improve the soil carbon content ect. Would this make the tax more to your liking as oppossed to the money going to the govoment??

    :shrug:

    Yes!!!!

    I don’t get into politics, but I resent having to pay a carbon tax without any tangible benefit to the environment. When Rudd gave out his ‘stimulus money’ a while ago, I thought to myself, rather than hand out random cash amounts, why didn’t he hand out credits towards solar panels or rainwater tanks and the like. That way, people would have purchasd an item to benefit the environment, it would have stimulated the economy and created jobs in these industries to meet the increased demand. I feel similarly about this tax – if they could say that the money would be used directly to do a b or c which would definitely assist the environment, I would be much happier. Are the pollies gonna stop flying everywhere around the world and do conference calls instead? Drive more environmentally friendly cars? How about if they forced all new housing developments to include large community veggie gardens? So many things they could do, but instead they are buying off-shore credits!

    #500991

    dianne post=317199 wrote: I am wondering if those who are against the carbon tax would be so against it if it was part of a package deal??

    If it was a starting measure, and then perhaps the funds from the tax used towards other things such as setting up major solar companies, reforestation, a progame to improve the soil carbon content ect. Would this make the tax more to your liking as oppossed to the money going to the govoment??

    :shrug:

    A great idea, Dianne for PM! Unfortunately for all of us Dianne I cannot see that happening in any way, shape or form. Historically Labor have always totally overspent and landed us in deep doo doo and by the look of it this Labor term is no different. One way or another the money they splash around has to be paid back so another tax is a great way to achieve that.

    I am all for doing the right thing by the environment and sustaining our planet, it’s the outright lies I find “on the nose”. Personally I’m totally disillusioned with all sides of politics, compared to a decade ago there seems to be a total lack of talent on all sides.

    Love them or hate them but where are the Paul Keating’s, John Howard’s, Graham Richardson’s and quite a few others of a decade ago, they all had talent, character and flair. It’s a sad state of affairs in my opinion.

    #500992
    diannedianne
    Participant

    :blink: gosh NO. was just a thought.

    #500993
    Wingen_minerWingen_miner
    Member

    MACs Aquariums post=317157 wrote: It will not lead to any reduction and for mine it will crucify the Labor Party at the next election. IMO it’s a blatant attempt at redistributing wealth, nothing more nothing less.

    When you pay out, as a Labor Government, billions to all and sundry, when reality sets in you somehow have to get it back. They’d have been better off being upfront and upping the GST by 50%!

    Cheers

    At least the GST is based on comsumption not income. Those that minimise or do for themselves (regardless of income) will pay less tax.

    After all, the polluting companies that so many are quick to critisise, are simply supplying a service requested by our society.

    and… GST also applies to imported goods!!

    #500994
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Goodness me… on to the second page and no vitriol yet. Maybe debate isn’t dead after all….

    A couple of points of my own –

    A package deal – That’s actually what we are getting with this plan. If you look at the full package it includes things like re-afforestation, soil carbon, a massive investment in renewable energy and all the things you are looking for.

    Offshore emissions reductions – There are those that see offshore emissions reductions as some kind of a cop-out. I don’t. Remember, global warming is a global problem. Regardless of whether emissions are reduced here or somewhere offshore, the key thing is that they are being reduced. This will result in a net reduction in the amount of emissions due to Australian economic activity. That’s a good thing. Provided the offsets are real and not dodgy but there are enough safeguards built into this plan to ensure that the offsets purchased are genuine. Because offshore reductions can be cheaper than local reductions, this will actually lead to more reductions that an 100% domestic plan for the same cost. There is also an added benefit of helping developing economies develop in a sustainable way rather than an unsustainable one.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #500995
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Airgead post=317213 wrote: Regardless of whether emissions are reduced here or somewhere offshore, the key thing is that they are being reduced. This will result in a net reduction in the amount of emissions due to Australian economic activity.

    Dave, I see your point, but I would still feel happier if the outcome was a genuine reduction in our emissions, as we are one of the most polluting countries per head of population. If we could genuinely reduce our emissions to 80% of the y2k total by 2050, THAT would be something to crow about.

    I have to say, I think we will reduce emissions anyway, as the supply and price problems resulting from Peak Oil will be biting hard by 2050, if not well before.

    Still, I am mildly supportive of the carbon tax and subsequent trading scheme, as it adds weight to the push for a global cap-and-trade market. I hope that the scheme does develop in such a way as to cause our emissions to genuinely reduce over time.

    Cheers,

    Doug

    #500996
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    I actually agree with you – peak oil will force a massive reduction in domestic emissions anyway.

    Nevertheless, offshore reductions are a necessary part of any reduction plan. Even if only for the incentives they give to developing nations to develop in a sustainable way rather than following our path.

    The cost reductions in offshore reductions are also important – the current plan is estimated to cost A$4B up to 2020 and allows 50% offshore reductions. Abbot’s plan which is essentially 100% domestic reductions has been costed (by Abbot no less) at over A$12B up to 2020 and for a lower level of total reductions.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 254 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.