Given that so many people complained on The Gold coast about the councils 10% rate rises which amounted to about $200 or $4 a week

Why ar epeople voting for labor when they'll get an ETS which will rip between $50 and $100 a week out of your pocket??


Why do you want an ETS?????

Quite simply Labor4never .. some people are masochists and thus derive pleasure in inflicting punishment upon themselves.

Oh and it's great to see you come on board my dear friend :)

We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS.

We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish.

Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything?

Don't the old parties have any business sense?

and I ask again,

How is reducing our emissions from 1.4% of world total to .9% of world total going to help, when our entire annual savings is emittied by china and India in 11 hours.


How many 10s of thousands of jobs will go offshore???

laborfornever wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 7:53pm:

and I ask again, How is reducing our emissions from 1.4% of world total to .9% of world total going to help, when our entire annual savings is emittied by china and India in 11 hours. How many 10s of thousands of jobs will go offshore???

You're a typical fascist hiding behind any and every excuse you can find to not contribute to society!

No one likes your attitude and when you lose the young voters we will all laugh!

Have fun behind that big fence of yours mister scaredy cat!

again no answer, just blinly following your party, It was funny all you labor bogans were 100% behind Rudd then he got shafted faster than a virgin blowing his load. But you all supported Rudd, Then the party comes out and says the government was losing its way, but you were supporting that very government that lost its way.

You labor bogans really are thick as 2 short planks, and there unfortunately is no shortage of you bugger dumb cnts

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 8:02pm:

laborfornever wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:53pm: and I ask again, How is reducing our emissions from 1.4% of world total to .9% of world total going to help, when our entire annual savings is emittied by china and India in 11 hours. How many 10s of thousands of jobs will go offshore??? You're a typical fascist hiding behind any and every excuse you can find to not contribute to society! No one likes your attitude and when you lose the young voters we will all laugh! Have fun behind that big fence of yours mister scaredy cat!

Gawd!!! Thick doesn't even begin to describe this response. You'll be voting Green, I can see.

Woody, although I agree the big poluters should be paying, the only problem is the big polluters are the big end of town, and the big end of town always make the little guy pay.

Our banks still made billions in a global downturn.

We will be paying more if we don't act.

And the higher the rate of reduction, the cheaper it will be for the economy.

Also those suggesting the path of inaction on the bases of our pulling our weight will not make an impact ... what would happen if people stopped paying tax because one person couldn't afford to build a hospital.

pull your finger out and let some air in to that grey matter you sit on.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 7:29pm:

We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS. We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish. Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything? Don't the old parties have any business sense?

NO we don't need a 'price on carbon'.....we need to develop alternative energy sources.......to replace the 'carbon intensive' enrgy production we currently use...and that is ALL we need...

A price on carbon will simply increase the living costs of families that are already struggling to make ends meet now...

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

We will be paying more if we don't act. And the higher the rate of reduction, the cheaper it will be for the economy. Also those suggesting the path of inaction on the bases of our pulling our weight will not make an impact ... what would happen if people stopped paying tax because one person couldn't afford to build a hospital. pull your finger out and let some air in to that grey matter you sit on.

Im suggesting a country who's stock market is still tanked and the global economy is still far from rosy, why risk out economic future now.

We should not be doing anything until we are in a position to do so.  A two or three year wait, along with some money from the mining tax kicking in will make it much more affordable.

Australia is about the 15th largest economy ... we are extremely wealthy

Sitting on our hands will let the massive opportunities from getting a head start on the post carbon economy go off to countries like China and India.

Why do you guys want to support the Chinese and Indian economies, while dam the Australian economy.

Also a price on carbon will cause the renewable sector to boom.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:

Australia is about the 15th largest economy ... we are extremely wealthy Sitting on our hands will let the massive opportunities from getting a head start on the post carbon economy go off to countries like China and India. Why do you guys want to support the Chinese and Indian economies, while dam the Australian economy. Also a price on carbon will cause the renewable sector to boom.

Green, according to this article it's too late anyway:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89914

So is there really any point?

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:

Australia is about the 15th largest economy ... we are extremely wealthy Sitting on our hands will let the massive opportunities from getting a head start on the post carbon economy go off to countries like China and India. Why do you guys want to support the Chinese and Indian economies, while dam the Australian economy. Also a price on carbon will cause the renewable sector to boom.

More hyperbole from someone who does not understand the global market nor economies of scale

Cyberman wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 11:01pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 9:56pm: Australia is about the 15th largest economy ... we are extremely wealthy Sitting on our hands will let the massive opportunities from getting a head start on the post carbon economy go off to countries like China and India. Why do you guys want to support the Chinese and Indian economies, while dam the Australian economy. Also a price on carbon will cause the renewable sector to boom. More hyperbole from someone who does not understand the global market nor economies of scale

bugger of IQSRLOW, you're banned from here, why havn't the mods banned you again?As for the rest of your sh1t, without changes there wont be a world economy, why are rightards so stupid that they only think about what goes into their pocket today? why do Liberal supporters hate kids? why dont you want this next generation of kids to have the same chance you got? inbred tard.

Curb the  hate skippy, the only post here that is over the top is yours, if people contribute, and don't cause problems, they will not be banned, no matter if someone does not like them, or not.
I don't care who did what in the past, anyone posting here gets a chance to be positive, and argue their points, "polite (ish) ly".
If they only come to disrupt, that will be dealt with too, so rather than clog up boards with posts about who people like or dislike, just bring any "questionable" posts to the attention of a mod by way of a PM.

Now, on topic again, we sometimes need to do things just because they are the right thing to do, and a Carbon Tax is one of those things.

IQSRLOW is banned from here, if you wont do something I'll have to go over your head.
Thanks for not doing your job, thanks for nothing.

Hi Skippy

As you have already been informed, I am not your little friend IQ. Perhaps some anger management councilling should be in order hmmm?

Now back to the subject at hand. Already peple are seeing significant increases in energy with many complaints being raised as the elderly and poor being unable to afford to switch on heaters. Do we penalize them as well as business for an ideological idea that really will achieve nothing?

Just think, with an ETS African Dictators can buy much more then small arms. Just think how much their military would grow with us funding it though the ETS. They will no longer be chopping off the hands of voters who appose them they will be able to use other more expensive methods. It would also help increase pollution levels in china and India and manufacturing would grind to a halt in Australia.

ets is a tax on air that will give no difference to the environment.

it'll line the leftard govt's pockets and cause mass unemployment.
hey, then the leftards'll have what they want, everyone eual with the motherstate  controlling all.

See this is were the ETS falls over BIG TIME.

1. The Rudd government stated the government would compensate households due to the increase in costs. Agree?

2. Wong has said any company needing to buy carbon credits can do so from any country that sells carbon credits, Brazil for example they hav emassive carbon bank in the amazon. Agree?

OK

So if companies buy their credits from an overseas company that is money sent offshore, billions of dollars, Agree?


Now Rudd has said the governemnt will compensate households, how does the government propose to do that if the carbon permit buyers are buying permits from overseas and not from Australian carbon credit providers, IE the government.

How can or will the government be able to afford to compensate consumers when the money from buying credits is going to another country??

That will leave a massive funding gap of billions of dollars. How can that possibly be feasable???


Another classic example of labor party financial mismanagement, and you people vote for them. My god are you too stupid to see just how incompetant they are???

They could not run a choko vine over a shithouse

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:29pm: We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS. We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish. Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything? Don't the old parties have any business sense? NO we don't need a 'price on carbon'.....we need to develop alternative energy sources.......to replace the 'carbon intensive' enrgy production we currently use...and that is ALL we need... A price on carbon will simply increase the living costs of families that are already struggling to make ends meet now...

Industry itself has been pushing for an ETS for some years now. Their reason: an ETS will ensure stability in the marketplace and place an equal price on carbon.

At present, many electricity producers need to upgrade their infrastructure. They are uncertain at present what technology they will be required to upgrade or install.

The only way to ensure lower carbon emissions and keep the electricity producers on a level playing field is to have an ETS or carbon price. The tax is a market mechanism advocated by many of the big industries themselves.

Domestic prices will rise, but we're talking projections of 10 to 20%. That's $20 to $40 a quarter for my electricity bill. Labor's policy was to compensate low-income earners and pensioners.

India and China DO need to come on board, but they are also watching what other countries do. If Australia acts, it will bring international action one small step closer to consensus.

The only way to lower carbon emissions in any meaningful way is to place a cost burden on carbon-poluting industries. This way, they invest in new technologies to reduce their emissions. They do this because their competitors are doing the same; and thus, it's a level playing field.

Coal power is currently cheap because the technology is in place to deliver it. If power generators have an incentive to move to cleaner technologies, they will do so.

To be honest, if families are hurting now, they will always be hurting. They were hurting a lot more before electricity was delivered to their homes. An electricity price hike also encourages consumers to lower their electricity use. Again, without a cost incentive, very little action will happen.

You expect citizens in a democracy to whinge about change, so it's fair enough, but people do get used to it in a fairly quick space of time. We need to see a mass change of behaviour to reduce carbon emissions.

The 'Idiot's Guide to ETS'


Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.
The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant.
Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or credits) equivalent to their emissions.
The total amount of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level.

Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.
The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade.

In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions.
Thus,  those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.




It's pretty basic stuff, really

karnal you seem to overlook 1 small actually big fact.

Company X wants to make say $1 profit buy selling electricyt at 1 cent a KW based on people using 100KW.

lets say people now only use 50KW cause they have cut consumption company X is now only making 50cents profit.

What will happen to cost of electricty???


yep you quessed it will now cost 2cents per KW so company can still make $1 profit.

it happened with water on the gold coast consumption dropped by 40% now water costs went up 50% so water company still makes the profit it wants.

You people just don't understand how things work in the real world.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 9:41pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:29pm: We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS. We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish. Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything? Don't the old parties have any business sense? NO we don't need a 'price on carbon'.....we need to develop alternative energy sources.......to replace the 'carbon intensive' enrgy production we currently use...and that is ALL we need... A price on carbon will simply increase the living costs of families that are already struggling to make ends meet now... Industry itself has been pushing for an ETS for some years now. Their reason: an ETS will ensure stability in the marketplace and place an equal price on carbon. At present, many electricity producers need to upgrade their infrastructure. They are uncertain at present what technology they will be required to upgrade or install. The only way to ensure lower carbon emissions and keep the electricity producers on a level playing field is to have an ETS or carbon price. The tax is a market mechanism advocated by many of the big industries themselves. Domestic prices will rise, but we're talking projections of 10 to 20%. That's $20 to $40 a quarter for my electricity bill. Labor's policy was to compensate low-income earners and pensioners. India and China DO need to come on board, but they are also watching what other countries do. If Australia acts, it will bring international action one small step closer to consensus. The only way to lower carbon emissions in any meaningful way is to place a cost burden on carbon-poluting industries. This way, they invest in new technologies to reduce their emissions. They do this because their competitors are doing the same; and thus, it's a level playing field. Coal power is currently cheap because the technology is in place to deliver it. If power generators have an incentive to move to cleaner technologies, they will do so. To be honest, if families are hurting now, they will always be hurting. They were hurting a lot more before electricity was delivered to their homes. An electricity price hike also encourages consumers to lower their electricity use. Again, without a cost incentive, very little action will happen. You expect citizens in a democracy to whinge about change, so it's fair enough, but people do get used to it in a fairly quick space of time. We need to see a mass change of behaviour to reduce carbon emissions.

"applause"
Fantastic post
Factual without the scare mongering from either side
Very much like most of the stuff I've read here and elsewhere before we yahoo's brought our baggage, perhaps we should try more to fit in rather than running the locals over with petty squabbles
I think  your question has been answered L4N

buzz you have left out a point on where companies can buy that permit from, do you want me to post Wongs speach on where they can buy them from, it is only a control V away from being done.

i'll give you time to advise where permits can be bought from.

Which proves that OS permits will see funds sent OS while the government has to then find money to compensate consumers.

Doesn't make sense does it, but that how labor works

FFS, do you right whingers want globalisation or not!?

laborfornever wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 11:11am:

buzz you have left out a point on where companies can buy that permit from, do you want me to post Wongs speach on where they can buy them from, it is only a control V away from being done. i'll give you time to advise where permits can be bought from. Which proves that OS permits will see funds sent OS while the government has to then find money to compensate consumers. Doesn't make sense does it, but that how labor works

A company that was INCREASING emissions - nessesitating the need to purchase additional credits (increasing it's production cost) - is not going to last long in an ETS based economy

But I agree, the off-shore credit purchase was a flaw that needed fine tuning




AUSTRALIAN-backed proposals to reward companies that stop deforestation in poor countries will derail efforts to tackle climate climate, according to a report.

Released overnight at United Nations climate talks in Germany by Greenpeace International, the report says plans to recognise forest protection in a global climate deal would trigger a collapse in the carbon permit price of up to 75 per cent.

It found issuing forestry credits for avoiding deforestation would also drastically reduce investment in clean energy technology, locking in "dirty" technologies such as coal-fired power.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/labor-attacked-on-forest-credits-plan-20090330-9h2h.html

laborfornever wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 11:09am:

karnal you seem to overlook 1 small actually big fact. Company X wants to make say $1 profit buy selling electricyt at 1 cent a KW based on people using 100KW. lets say people now only use 50KW cause they have cut consumption company X is now only making 50cents profit. What will happen to cost of electricty??? yep you quessed it will now cost 2cents per KW so company can still make $1 profit. it happened with water on the gold coast consumption dropped by 40% now water costs went up 50% so water company still makes the profit it wants. You people just don't understand how things work in the real world.

Your argument doesn't have anything to do with an ETS or a price on carbon.

However, your solution is that people should use more electricity to keep prices down.

Not a very sustainable argument, is it?

You're also forgetting that most electricty costs come through electricity use at peak hours. If our electricity use was even throughout the day, bills would be cut by about 60%: the extra costs are borne by the cost of infrastructure needed to maintain peak supply.

WWF says marginals back carbon trading
Posted 4 hours 20 minutes ago

A new Galaxy poll of four marginal Queensland seats has found support for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) continues to grow.

The poll was commissioned by World Wildlife Fund Australia.

It found 74 per cent of respondents in the seats of Brisbane, Bowman, Petrie and Ryan say they are in favour of an ETS to reduce carbon pollution.

The figure is up 4 per cent from the previous poll conducted in June.

The survey also found 87 per cent of those who identified themselves as Labor voters want an ETS by next year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2959658.htm?section=justin

.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 9:41pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:29pm: We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS. We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish. Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything? Don't the old parties have any business sense? NO we don't need a 'price on carbon'.....we need to develop alternative energy sources.......to replace the 'carbon intensive' enrgy production we currently use...and that is ALL we need... A price on carbon will simply increase the living costs of families that are already struggling to make ends meet now... Industry itself has been pushing for an ETS for some years now. Their reason: an ETS will ensure stability in the marketplace and place an equal price on carbon. At present, many electricity producers need to upgrade their infrastructure. They are uncertain at present what technology they will be required to upgrade or install. The only way to ensure lower carbon emissions and keep the electricity producers on a level playing field is to have an ETS or carbon price. The tax is a market mechanism advocated by many of the big industries themselves. . India and China DO need to come on board, but they are also watching what other countries do. If Australia acts, it will bring international action one small step closer to consensus. The only way to lower carbon emissions in any meaningful way is to place a cost burden on carbon-poluting industries. This way, they invest in new technologies to reduce their emissions. They do this because their competitors are doing the same; and thus, it's a level playing field. Coal power is currently cheap because the technology is in place to deliver it. If power generators have an incentive to move to cleaner technologies, they will do so. To be honest, if families are hurting now, they will always be hurting. They were hurting a lot more before electricity was delivered to their homes. An electricity price hike also encourages consumers to lower their electricity use. Again, without a cost incentive, very little action will happen. You expect citizens in a democracy to whinge about change, so it's fair enough, but people do get used to it in a fairly quick space of time. We need to see a mass change of behaviour to reduce carbon emissions.

That's good Karnal...

"Domestic prices will rise, but we're talking projections of 10 to 20%. That's $20 to $40 a quarter for my electricity bill. Labor's policy was to compensate low-income earners and pensioners"

That would be nice, except for the fact that the LAST rise in prices in July (which was announced when the ETS was still on the agenda last year)  works out to closer to $181.00 per quarter in NSW....

A $20-$40 per quarter rise for 'infrastructure improvements' is one thing, and quite expected.......An increase of $100 per quarter to cover the 'carbon price per ton' is another....

The ETS was shelved...so no price was set....but still the price increased......care to guess how much MORE it will go up when a 'carbon price' IS set?????

I note that comment is made about how low a percentage 1.4% is?

Do you realise that with arouind 200 countries this equates to 3 countries worth of polution, or 300% above our fair share.

.

laborfornever wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:

Given that so many people complained on The Gold coast about the councils 10% rate rises which amounted to about $200 or $4 a week Why ar epeople voting for labor when they'll get an ETS which will rip between $50 and $100 a week out of your pocket?? Why do you want an ETS?????

Compared to options like Abbott's, it will do far less harm to the economy.

I personally prefer a tax, like what the Greens are promoting at the moment. You could use the revenue to lower other taxes, further reducing the economic impact.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 5:28pm:

I note that comment is made about how low a percentage 1.4% is? Do you realise that with arouind 200 countries this equates to 3 countries worth of polution, or 300% above our fair share. .

and if you made an allowance for the fact that we are a BIG country then we would be average again. and if you get us to no long feed the world but only ourselves then it drops even more. per-capita is a ridiculous measurement to use when comparing countries. some of the low-emitting countries are also the countries that do nothing but conduct civil wars while taking our money and our food to keep their populations alive.

Quote:

and if you made an allowance for the fact that we are a BIG country then we would be average again

So because we sit on a huge patch of empty desert, we are not actually greedy and wasteful, we are actually just as poor as the Indians?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 4:11pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jul 21st, 2010 at 10:51am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 9:41pm: ____ wrote on Jul 20th, 2010 at 7:29pm: We don't need an ETS ... we require a price on carbon via either a levy or a market mechanism like an ETS. We pay for the water we drink and wash in, the food we eat, the rubbish removed from our homes ... yet the old parties think the big polluters that are making billions shouldn't pay for their rubbish. Why are the old parties expecting everyone to subsidize these polluting businesses through loss of lifestyle, and higher prices for everything? Don't the old parties have any business sense? NO we don't need a 'price on carbon'.....we need to develop alternative energy sources.......to replace the 'carbon intensive' enrgy production we currently use...and that is ALL we need... A price on carbon will simply increase the living costs of families that are already struggling to make ends meet now... Industry itself has been pushing for an ETS for some years now. Their reason: an ETS will ensure stability in the marketplace and place an equal price on carbon. At present, many electricity producers need to upgrade their infrastructure. They are uncertain at present what technology they will be required to upgrade or install. The only way to ensure lower carbon emissions and keep the electricity producers on a level playing field is to have an ETS or carbon price. The tax is a market mechanism advocated by many of the big industries themselves. . India and China DO need to come on board, but they are also watching what other countries do. If Australia acts, it will bring international action one small step closer to consensus. The only way to lower carbon emissions in any meaningful way is to place a cost burden on carbon-poluting industries. This way, they invest in new technologies to reduce their emissions. They do this because their competitors are doing the same; and thus, it's a level playing field. Coal power is currently cheap because the technology is in place to deliver it. If power generators have an incentive to move to cleaner technologies, they will do so. To be honest, if families are hurting now, they will always be hurting. They were hurting a lot more before electricity was delivered to their homes. An electricity price hike also encourages consumers to lower their electricity use. Again, without a cost incentive, very little action will happen. You expect citizens in a democracy to whinge about change, so it's fair enough, but people do get used to it in a fairly quick space of time. We need to see a mass change of behaviour to reduce carbon emissions. That's good Karnal... "Domestic prices will rise, but we're talking projections of 10 to 20%. That's $20 to $40 a quarter for my electricity bill. Labor's policy was to compensate low-income earners and pensioners" That would be nice, except for the fact that the LAST rise in prices in July (which was announced when the ETS was still on the agenda last year)  works out to closer to $181.00 per quarter in NSW.... A $20-$40 per quarter rise for 'infrastructure improvements' is one thing, and quite expected.......An increase of $100 per quarter to cover the 'carbon price per ton' is another.... The ETS was shelved...so no price was set....but still the price increased......care to guess how much MORE it will go up when a 'carbon price' IS set?????

Hi - could you provide anything to back up your cost projections? I'd be interested to see this.

Thanks, Gizmo.

I'll consider you enlightened then, dahling.

Goods and services that are carbon intensive are supposed to go up in price so the consumer can make a corresponding reduction in their use.
It does not have to cost an individual 1 cent extra if they cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services, this includes electricity.
If you want to use industries that spew carbon into our atmosphere at the same rates they are today then you will and should pay a premium for ruining our planet for future generations.
As long as these extra tax dollars are used to ween us off carbon and encourage alternatives, training and investment in clean green fuels then it is a good and simple way of solving a huge problem.
If you dont want to pay the extra 10 or 20 % then use alternatives and cut your use correspondingly , you may even save money and you will definitely be saving the planet and its resources   :)
The alternative is to stick our heads in the sand, keep burning carbon like there is no tomorrow and let our grand kids deal with the problems we have left them  :)

This is where your blinkere din your perfect world.

The only real thing that you can cut consumption is electricity.

So with everything else you need to survive how do you cut your food consumption, how does a company that uses products from a range of ETS effected companies charge less or the same for its product when it is paying more for its goods. Think house construction car construction.

A mining company just got drilled with Gillards mining tax, they will now be liable for ETS as very energy intense to mine and transport ore. China pays more for its ore, meaning our car manafacturers pay more for the processed ore. How do I cut my consumption on that??

How much will electrical companents go up as many have mined minerals in them, again dug up by mining companies now paying and ETS passed onto the end consumer.

That glass table just cost more because turning sand into glass is a massively energy intense process so all you glass goods go up, that includes windows in houses which I forgot to include earlier.

everything you touch or wear will go up, farmers who produce cotton will pay more to produce sell for more to china who charge more to our importers who yes will charge more to the consumer??


There are so many factors that you seem to overlook, wether your a bit simple or just trying to push labor policy I don't know. But rest assured an ETS will hammer middle and low income earners, send uncompetitive industry offshore, cost jobs force famillies into bankruptcy have households living in the street.

is that the country you want to live in??? All to save a .4% reduction in carbon??? it is just illogical.

Quite simple, just use products that use less or no carbon. Food grown closer to home is going to be much cheaper than the same goods trucked across the country.
Building products that are manufactured closer to home will be cheaper than ones that come from the other side of Oz.
In the end its just a shift in thinking and carbon intensive industries will also quickly adapt so they can keep their prices down rather than lose consumers to the raft of new players who will appear  :)

Quote:

The only real thing that you can cut consumption is electricity.

Not true at all. There are hundreds of ways you can cut your GHG footprint.

Rather than being negative about it all I think its an exciting time for this country. The beginning of a new way of thinking and doing things. We have the chance to move away from being just a quarry to the Asian manufacturing giants.
We can be at the forefront of new technologies and export our ideas and expertise across the world.
Even if you dont agree with man made climate change we are pretty stupid digging up all our resources and selling them for a song to Asia so they can burn more coal and spew pollution and carbon into the atmosphere, land and water ways, leaving nothing left for our future generations.
While we are still the wealthy lucky country lets make the changes we need to now and set this country up for the next 200 years  :)

The cost of doing nothing is far greater than the cost of a simple price on carbon and the longer we wait the greater the financial and environmental cost.
I would rather make a few simple adjustments now than heap a much bigger burden on my kids and grand kids  :)

This thread like most started by Labornever are just pure fantasy.
Labor dont even intend on doing anything until 2013, so its a nothing thread, which is very unfortunate, as I, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES  believe we need an ETS, and we need it NOW.

Quote:

I, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES  believe we need an ETS, and we need it NOW.

I call bullsh1t and so does Labor internal polling

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

Quote: I, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES  believe we need an ETS, and we need it NOW. I call bullsh1t and so does Labor internal polling

As if you'd know anything about Labor internal polling NOIQ.

I know that this issue is one they are running from like a frightened kangaroo  ;)

Why else has Gillard/Labor stalled and invented the most cynical, transparent and gutless policies ever in the form of a "citizens assembly"- it is laughable

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

I know that this issue is one they are running from like a frightened kangaroo  ;) Why else has Gillard/Labor stalled and invented the most cynical, transparent and gutless policies ever in the form of a "citizens assembly"- it is laughable

Oh I agree, we need an ETS now,and I'm glad to see I've finally convinced you we need one too, welcome aboard, spermy. Gillard has buggered up by putting it off until the next election.
BUT, at least Labor believe in climate change, Abbott calls climate change"BULLSH1T" .

You haven't convinced me nor THE MAJORITY of the need at all.

Quote:

Abbott calls climate change"BULLSH1T"

Why do you feel the need to lie?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 1:57pm:

You haven't convinced me nor THE MAJORITY of the need at all. Quote: Abbott calls climate change"BULLSH1T" Why do you feel the need to lie?

I'm not like you I dont lie, Abbott is on record as calling climate change BULLSH!T, you must be the only tard who doesn't know it.

Link, or you lie.

You will have to produce the transcript that Abbott actually said bullshit, or you will forever be labelled as a liar  ;)

You might as well stop your furious googling skippy and start putting out your pants which are on fire.

Remeber, stop, drop and roll...over  :D

A liitle cnfusion perhaps,it was a coilition member who used bullshit but in the context of describing his own parties policy, who I here you ask, well the only one with courage of his convictions of course a MR Turnbull

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html

While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott, was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy.

So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.
Advertisement: Story continues below

To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.

The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions.

The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement".

It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for.

Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right.

Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it.

Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....."

Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement.

Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.

Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well

Quote:

Abbott is on record as calling climate change BULLSH!T,

Then perhaps you should advise skippy to think before he types? He doesn't seem to have got the hang of it

Pants been extinguished yet skippy?
:D

[quoteClimate change
Speaking in July 2009, Abbott told the ABC's 7:30 Report that though he thought the science of climate change was "highly contentious" and that he thought that the economics of an ETS was "a bit dodgy", he nevertheless thought that the Opposition should pass the Rudd Government's ETS as he didn't think it would be "a good look for the Opposition to be browner than Howard going into the next election".[79]

At an October 2009 meeting in the Victorian town of Beaufort, Abbott was reported to have said: "The argument (on climate change) is absolute crap... However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger".[80] On 1 December 2009, when questioned about that statement, he said he had used "a bit of hyperbole" at that meeting rather than it being his "considered position".[81]

Speaking in November 2009, prior to being elected Leader of the Opposition, Abbott told the ABC's Lateline program that in relation to Climate Change Policy:

I am always reluctant to join bandwagons][/quote]

I always thought absolute crap, meant bullsh1t.

But you're right noiq, Abbott said it was absolute crap, Turnbull says that Abbotts policy is BULLSHIT,would you like the link noiq?

No, you have proven that your are a liar.

That's enough for me
;D

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 2:26pm:

No, you have proven that your are a liar. That's enough for me ;D

I'll let other be the judge of that.
Anyone with half a brain knows that by saying something is "absolute crap" is the same as saying it is bullsh1t.suck it up .

Liar liar skip  ;D

again pure fanatsy on the buy food from closer to home???


Almost all farm produce is trucked to a market setup then purchased by large stores and in many instanced trucked right back to the town that grew it.

Most bananas go from Nth Qld to Brisbane then back to Nth Qld. Do some research.


Ok I ask this.

How much money would you spend to cut you living expenses by .4%??

would you change the way you have to do things if it coists you 5% of your income to save that .4%


Thats what it boild down to and given India and China will emitt more in 12 hours than we save in a full year.

Tell me what is the point?????

All I have heard is feel good must be seen to do something, when the actuall benefit from being seen to be doing something at a massive cost gives a net benefit to the climate of .4% which in the schemes of things is nothing.

skippy. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:27pm:

This thread like most started by Labornever are just pure fantasy. Labor dont even intend on doing anything until 2013, so its a nothing thread, which is very unfortunate, as I, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AUSSIES  believe we need an ETS, and we need it NOW.

NO skippy...Kevin Rudd said Labor doesn't 'intend to do anything until 2013'....However Rudd is NO longer in charge....

For all we know...Gillard 'might' want to bring the ETS back tomorrow....

laborfornever wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 2:47pm:

again pure fanatsy on the buy food from closer to home??? Almost all farm produce is trucked to a market setup then purchased by large stores and in many instanced trucked right back to the town that grew it. Most bananas go from Nth Qld to Brisbane then back to Nth Qld. Do some research. Ok I ask this. How much money would you spend to cut you living expenses by .4%?? would you change the way you have to do things if it coists you 5% of your income to save that .4% Thats what it boild down to and given India and China will emitt more in 12 hours than we save in a full year. Tell me what is the point????? All I have heard is feel good must be seen to do something, when the actuall benefit from being seen to be doing something at a massive cost gives a net benefit to the climate of .4% which in the schemes of things is nothing.

Give it up labor4never.....they've drunk the coolaid....They really  can't see the cost to us through their 'rose-coloured' glasses....

It would make more sense to have a carbon tax.  Europe demonstrated how easy it was for corporations to weasel out of an ETS. As a result, Kyoto accomplished nothing. The world went backwards.

If necessary, keep the Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed  scheme , and gradually phase it out as renewable energy becomes cheaper.

The emphasis needs to be on making renewable energy cheaper to maximise the uptake.

muso wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:33pm:

It would make more sense to have a carbon tax.  Europe demonstrated how easy it was for corporations to weasel out of an ETS. As a result, Kyoto accomplished nothing. The world went backwards. If necessary, keep the Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed  scheme , and gradually phase it out as renewable energy becomes cheaper. The emphasis needs to be on making renewable energy cheaper to maximise the uptake.

No muso, it makes MORE sense to have an incentive system to 'encourage' the change over to renewable energies.....

After all 'You catch more flys with honey than with vinegar'....

Bonuses work far better than penalties...

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 2:11pm:

A liitle cnfusion perhaps,it was a coilition member who used bullshit but in the context of describing his own parties policy, who I here you ask, well the only one with courage of his convictions of course a MR Turnbull http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott, was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy. So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into. First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money. Advertisement: Story continues below To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it. The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions. The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement". It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for. Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world. Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right. Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it. Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....." Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement. Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted. Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well

The more I see from Turnbull, the more I like him. It is a great shame he lost the coalition leadership. It would have made this election very interesting. I would have been voting liberal.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 2:11pm: A liitle cnfusion perhaps,it was a coilition member who used bullshit but in the context of describing his own parties policy, who I here you ask, well the only one with courage of his convictions of course a MR Turnbull http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott, was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy. So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into. First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money. Advertisement: Story continues below To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it. The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions. The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement". It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for. Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world. Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right. Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it. Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....." Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement. Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted. Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well The more I see from Turnbull, the more I like him. It is a great shame he lost the coalition leadership. It would have made this election very interesting. I would have been voting liberal.

Yes me too freediver, in my personal opinion the Liberals would romp in if Turnbull was leading and Australia would be miles ahead.
The truest test of this is how much the righties like to put him down,
"not a team player","his way or the highway" are regular phrases used to describe him.He will in the end drag the Liberals back to the centre,kicking and screaming maybe but none the less back they will come after Tony's drubbing.
Face it the man doesn't need to work or could earn millions more in the private sector yet where is he, in the thick of political debate taking on the Labor party and a good proportion of his own, he's there for the country nothing else.

Quote:

I would have been voting liberal.

Quote:

Yes me too freediver

Who are you trying to convince?  ;D

But considering the state of Labor with just changing the face at the helm then it might not be unheard of for the convictionless voter

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

Quote: I would have been voting liberal. [quote]Yes me too freediver

Who are you trying to convince?  ;D

But considering the state of Labor with just changing the face at the helm then it might not be unheard of for the convictionless voter[/quote]

I'm hardly a convictionless voter, Labor esposed those convictions last election and have failed to deliver.
Tony on the otherhand has convictions I don't want or believe in.
So for me it's a choice between the lesser of 2 evils although BOTH major parties will be last on my ballot paper labor 2nd last, liberals last and yes I do vote below the line allocate preferences as I wish.
Greens and independants will benefit from my ballot this year.

Quote:

Greens and independants will benefit from my ballot this year.

Labor thanks you for the vote  ;)

Quote:

Enlighten me, Why do you want an ETS

So that we can put a price on polluting the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere is not an infinite waste dump for toxic gases.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

Quote: Greens and independants will benefit from my ballot this year. Labor thanks you for the vote  ;)

Yes I know that will be the result in the end and I'm not happy about that >:(

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

Quote: Enlighten me, Why do you want an ETS So that we can put a price on polluting the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is not an infinite waste dump for toxic gases.

Why should we hamstring our industry when our emissions are a minute fraction of total emissions?

its a tax on air, to support gillardsw big hot air govt with talkfests for the cretins

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:05pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 10:02pm: Quote: Greens and independants will benefit from my ballot this year. Labor thanks you for the vote  ;) Yes I know that will be the result in the end and I'm not happy about that >:(

But you will happily go and tick the Greens box anyway? I thought you voted strategically?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 10:05pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 10:02pm: Quote: Greens and independants will benefit from my ballot this year. Labor thanks you for the vote  ;) Yes I know that will be the result in the end and I'm not happy about that >:( But you will happily go and tick the Greens box anyway? I thought you voted strategically?

Like I said the lesser of 2 evils I also said Greens and EVERY other party before those 2(except the religious nutters).

Considering the waste and the last 3 years, I would say that the coalition are the lesser evil.

Maybe a female face is enough to get you through the day when Australia goes through hell on earth because of your 'lesser evil'

I know I will sleep soundly, whereas you will have the excuse "oh, I voted for the Greens'  ::)

And that's the beauty of where we live, you can vote your way & I can vote mine but in the end we can both go home and to the ballot box without the fear of persecution for that vote. ;)

But here, I get to ridicule you because of your poor choice.

It really is a wonderful world

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:56pm:

But here, I get to ridicule you because of your poor choice. It really is a wonderful world

;D ;D ;D

I like you dsmithy. At least you have the courage of your convictions and don't try to hide behind maladjusted statements with the inability to back them up.

I appreciate that...iiiii



...you are not good cannon fodder  ;)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:56pm:

muso wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 5:33pm: It would make more sense to have a carbon tax.  Europe demonstrated how easy it was for corporations to weasel out of an ETS. As a result, Kyoto accomplished nothing. The world went backwards. If necessary, keep the Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed  scheme , and gradually phase it out as renewable energy becomes cheaper. The emphasis needs to be on making renewable energy cheaper to maximise the uptake. No muso, it makes MORE sense to have an incentive system to 'encourage' the change over to renewable energies..... After all 'You catch more flys with honey than with vinegar'.... Bonuses work far better than penalties...

Nobody likes taxes, but you have to get the money for your incentive scheme from somewhere. If you put a carbon tax on coal production (most of which goes overseas anyway) then use the proceeds to fund solar thermal projects, isn't that what we'd be doing anyway? Of course that would make coal-fired power generation more expensive, and geothermal/ solar etc cheaper.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:08pm:

Why should we hamstring our industry when our emissions are a minute fraction of total emissions?

I'd be in favour of taxing our emissions in proportion to that minute fraction of total global emissions.  ;)

Which would only make sense if you were also able to tax the rest

laborfornever wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

This is where your blinkere din your perfect world. The only real thing that you can cut consumption is electricity. So with everything else you need to survive how do you cut your food consumption, how does a company that uses products from a range of ETS effected companies charge less or the same for its product when it is paying more for its goods. Think house construction car construction. A mining company just got drilled with Gillards mining tax, they will now be liable for ETS as very energy intense to mine and transport ore. China pays more for its ore, meaning our car manafacturers pay more for the processed ore. How do I cut my consumption on that?? How much will electrical companents go up as many have mined minerals in them, again dug up by mining companies now paying and ETS passed onto the end consumer. That glass table just cost more because turning sand into glass is a massively energy intense process so all you glass goods go up, that includes windows in houses which I forgot to include earlier. everything you touch or wear will go up, farmers who produce cotton will pay more to produce sell for more to china who charge more to our importers who yes will charge more to the consumer?? There are so many factors that you seem to overlook, wether your a bit simple or just trying to push labor policy I don't know. But rest assured an ETS will hammer middle and low income earners, send uncompetitive industry offshore, cost jobs force famillies into bankruptcy have households living in the street. is that the country you want to live in??? All to save a .4% reduction in carbon??? it is just illogical.

You're missing the point. A tax on carbon encourages investment in low emissions technology. This is the market mechanism. It is designed to create a shift to sustainable technology, a shift that will create new business opportunities across the board.

I know many farmers are keen for an ETS to get going, as they will be able to get in on the market for carbon offsets.

Planting a few trees around the place and government investment in renewables is a good start, but it won't provide a market incentive to create the shift needed.

Quote:

Nobody likes taxes, but you have to get the money for your incentive scheme from somewhere.

That is not the point of a tax on carbon. The tax itself is the goal. The funds raised should be used to reduce other taxes, not wasted.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 6:59pm:

Quote: Nobody likes taxes, but you have to get the money for your incentive scheme from somewhere. That is not the point of a tax on carbon. The tax itself is the goal. The funds raised should be used to reduce other taxes, not wasted.

Using some of that tax to make sustainable energy generation more competitive while it's scaled up, is not a waste.

It is if you end up subsidising energy.