This shifty deceptive lefty one ires me.


It's not a carbon tax. Carbon is the black stuff in my pencil.


It's a carbon dioxide tax. That's the invisible nonpolluting gas that makes up about 3/4 of the atmosphere.

It's the biggest con job I have seen. A tax on air.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

This shifty deceptive lefty one ires me. It's not a carbon tax. Carbon is the black stuff in my pencil. It's a carbon dioxide tax. That's the invisible nonpolluting gas that makes up about 3/4 of the atmosphere. It's the biggest con job I have seen. A tax on air.

Well, how about if we half agree?

All Politicians are shifty & the purpose of the Carbon Tax, is primarily to be a tax!

Exactly!!

The WHOLE thing is a scam and a con.

A Scam is Liberals and Labor voting for Coal to be included in Australia's 20% Renewable Energy Target ... now that's a scam.

Coal Seam Gas is not renewable energy source. It is a dangerous experiment that puts our fresh water, agricultural land and human life at risk.

CSG has pushed out the real renewables.

Labor, Liberal and sidekick Nats voted this con through.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

This shifty deceptive lefty one ires me. It's not a carbon tax. Carbon is the black stuff in my pencil. It's a carbon dioxide tax. That's the invisible nonpolluting gas that makes up about 3/4 of the atmosphere. It's the biggest con job I have seen. A tax on air.

Of course it is. People used to joke about the government taxing the air that we breathe, now they actually are. What a joke this Grabor/indie government is. At least we got to vote on the GST, and it had substance. Not the case here. At least we only have at most 2.5 years of this left. I am prediciting that it won't last that long though. I mean, this already? It's only been 6 months.

Wow sprint, you got us. Another conspiracy exposed.

Many people have strongly suspected that putting a price on carbon has its origins in Technocracy and negative Eugenics.  I am going to blow the lid off the Carbon Price - it is about putting a price on the right to live.  Gillard and the ruling class of utopians are no longer going to tolerate people not living "well" in their world.  The obscure idea of a price on carbon must be weighed with the Authoritarian anti social security approach they are now taking towards the poor.  They expect you to live according to their standards, their values and their aspirations - and they are going to try to make you.  The counter lying point being, failure to conform or live up to their standards forgoes your fitness to live and morally justifies killing defectives and incompatible people to their totalitarian world view.  These ideas are continuously recycled in progressive and utopian movements. - HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrtand Russel all ascribed to these theories.  I have no doubt that when Big Business, Tony Abbott and JuLIAR lead the charge against "welfarism", cracking down on the disabled ect they are consciously or unconsciously looking to rid the world of those who make it "uglier" and less "perfect" for them, but at its heart its even more simpler than that, they prosper by killing those they see or think are weaker.

A Price on Carbon is a Price on the right to live in the ideal Tranhumanist Utopian society they want to create. 8-)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__msUNftOh7A/S-X_m7p0CsI/AAAAAAAADJ4/kv_AQp6Av1Q/s1600/metropolis+female+robot.jpg 8-)

That is what a Price on Carbon is.


Quote:

"The new ethics will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility ... and the alternative in right conduct between living fully, beautifully, and efficiently will be to die." Source HG Wells

Quote:

"The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?" Source: George Bernard Shaw

Putting a "price" on carbon is about the most retarded idea I have ever heard of - you just know it had to come out of the head of a progressive utopian Nazi. :)

http://anonymous.me/images/liberals/Liberals1300746387.jpg :)

I wish deniers would go and breath some pure "air" and leave the rest of us to get on with life.

I must say, frequenting this forum is an interesting exercise in seeing just how quickly lies disseminated by News Ltd. become the hot topic for cadre of rightwing armchair activists and forum warriors. Even more interesting is how self professed "skeptics", who doubt even basic scientific facts, can be so gullible as to swallow any old garbage they read in the Herald Sun without question.

From Pure Poison:


Quote:

But I’m sure Terry is good at something else April 17, 2011 – 5:21 pm, by Jeremy Sear In an odd article titled “Producing CO2 is what we’re good at“, the Herald Sun‘s resident… uh, whatever it is that Terry McCrann is, gives the old “l” word a bit of a ridiculous beating:    In sharp contrast to the clarity and accuracy of Emerson’s speech, Combet’s was littered with verbosity and the deliberate lies incumbent on campaigners like him.    From the 48 times he used the term “carbon pollution” to quite deliberately foster the false impression of bits of dirty grit, to the pretence that China is not embarked on dramatically increasing its absolute levels of emissions of carbon dioxide. “Deliberate lies”? “Deliberately foster the false impression”? (Or, as it becomes in Andrew Bolt’s paraphrase, “48 times Combet lied about ‘carbon pollution’”.) Look, I’m not a climate scientist, and it’s a long time since I studied chemistry, but even I understand that the reason the term “carbon” is used is that the substances in question are mainly carbon compounds. Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon-based gas that carbon pollution reduction schemes are designed to tackle. The attack McCrann and others have made on using the word “pollution” in this context, as if it’s somehow dishonest to apply it to a substance that is natural or non-toxic, is also absurd. If the surfeit of something in the natural environment is harmful – and clearly an excess of carbon compounds in the atmosphere that ultimately alter the climate could reasonably be called “harmful” – then it’s a form of pollution. Yes, we all breathe it out – but that’s no reason why we should encourage our industries to spew out ever-increasing, unprecedented quantities of them. I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but perhaps before he starts talking next time about “deliberate” falsehoods and “lies” he might consider that neither word in the phrase that upsets him so much is inapplicable to the situation. The phrase makes perfect sense and does not mislead. It is not a lie. It’s really the most embarrassingly flimsy attack the climate deniers have manage to devise. That some of them still think it’s got legs is highly amusing. Meanwhile, I’d also like to hear from one of these people McCrann apparently knows who think that the greenhouse effect is about soot. Because whoever that is has clearly not understood a word the climate scientists have been saying. If there are a lot of them, then Terry’s made a pretty good case for an informative government advertising campaign right there. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/04/17/but-im-sure-terry-is-good-at-something-else/

Please delete wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Wow sprint, you got us. Another conspiracy exposed.

What ever would we do without teh interwebz?


Prevailing wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

http://anonymous.me/images/liberals/Liberals1300746387.jpg :)

A big "L" liberal, huh? That's just about right! ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

This shifty deceptive lefty one ires me. It's not a carbon tax. Carbon is the black stuff in my pencil. It's a carbon dioxide tax. That's the invisible nonpolluting gas that makes up about 3/4 of the atmosphere. It's the biggest con job I have seen. A tax on air.

Gee thanks Sprint. They would have had us all fooled if not for you.

I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but


well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution...

perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it..

In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour..

It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast

cods wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 6:40am:

I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution... perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it.. In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour.. It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast

And do know what mechanism was used to put a stop to the smog in America and England, or ozone depleting CFC's? A cap and trade system! Ironies abound...

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

cods wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 6:40am: I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution... perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it.. In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour.. It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast And do know what mechanism was used to put a stop to the smog in America and England, or ozone depleting CFC's? A cap and trade system! Ironies abound...

actually it was no such thing.

it was regulation on air pollution. and it was DECADES ago.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

cods wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 6:40am: I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution... perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it.. In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour.. It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast And do know what mechanism was used to put a stop to the smog in America and England, or ozone depleting CFC's? A cap and trade system! Ironies abound...

Astro,
You may be interested in the following sites -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/legislation/montp.html

If it were that simple, the same would have happened with Carbon!

But, it is far from simple, as the Global Economy largely rides on the back of Fossil Fuels and Population growth, which rides on the back of cheap & available Energy (Fossil Fuels).

So, Carbon can not be simply banned, as the Global Economy is so dependent on it, but we need to get rid of it, because of deteriorating Climate issues and many countries have large Debt problems.

Hence, the ever opportunistic Politicians can "forsee" killing" 2 problems with the same stick and, of course, the ever opportunistic financiers can see a quick buck.

By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage.

Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse.

As I have previously posted, it would be much more likely to have the desired impact, IF GHG's (including Fossil Fuels) were legislated for lower production/usage and that was backed up with a carrot & stick Tax approach, where those achieving targets were given Tax credits, whilst those not achieving the legislated level would get a Tax debit.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 8:12am: cods wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 6:40am: I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution... perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it.. In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour.. It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast And do know what mechanism was used to put a stop to the smog in America and England, or ozone depleting CFC's? A cap and trade system! Ironies abound... actually it was no such thing. it was regulation on air pollution. and it was DECADES ago.

Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what you are talking about, which probably explains why you are a denier, because you simply don't understand things so you get angry at them and start thinking it's some kind of conspiracy against you.
.
http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/dcee735e22c76aef85257662005f4116/86a2750ed83fe1d88525774200597f3a!OpenDocument

Quote:

Astro, You may be interested in the following sites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/legislation/montp.html If it were that simple, the same would have happened with Carbon!

It would have but action has been obstructed; first by a lame duck Democrat who would have done it if he could; then by a reactionary Republican denier; and, through it all, by a well funded, well organised, campaign of misinformation and smear orchestrated from within  the ranks of a small clique of neoliberal think tanks.


Quote:

But, it is far from simple, as the Global Economy largely rides on the back of Fossil Fuels and Population growth, which rides on the back of cheap & available Energy (Fossil Fuels).

No one said it was simple but the alternative don't bear thinking about.


Quote:

So, Carbon can not be simply banned, as the Global Economy is so dependent on it, but we need to get rid of it, because of deteriorating Climate issues and many countries have large Debt problems.

Yes. That's why we are trying to tax and trade it, rather than simply trying to regulate it.


Quote:

Hence, the ever opportunistic Politicians can "forsee" killing" 2 problems with the same stick and, of course, the ever opportunistic financiers can see a quick buck.

Maybe they can but there will always be those opportunistic people around who take advantage of whatever mechanism used to reduce emissions. That's human nature, it's something we have to live with and isn't an excuse for doing nothing. But if you can come up with a cheaper mechanism then I'm all ears.


Quote:

By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse.

A. The price of carbon will go up gradually.

B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start.


Quote:

As I have previously posted, it would be much more likely to have the desired impact, IF GHG's (including Fossil Fuels) were legislated for lower production/usage and that was backed up with a carrot & stick Tax approach, where those achieving targets were given Tax credits, whilst those not achieving the legislated level would get a Tax debit.

Well that sounds interesting, it certainly is refreshing to see someone offering an alternative rather than opposing just for the bloody-minded sake of opposition. However, I would need to see something a little more convincing than the opinion of some random guy on an internet forum before being convinced that it really is a solution.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 11:12am: astro_surf wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 8:12am: cods wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 6:40am: I don’t know where Terry gets the idea that “carbon pollution” puts most people in mind of “bits of dirty grit” from, but well astro as someone who lived through the great smog of London.. I tell you what you can actually wear it... the pollution... perhaps you need to take a fishing trip off the shores of Port Kembla.maybe Port Pirie.. and look back at your shoreline.. if you are lucky on a good day you can see it.. In wollongong peoples washing used to change colour.. It depends where you have lived I guess as to which way you look at pollution..check out places where people keep the windows and doors shut 24/7.. if it wasnt for the southerlies we wouldnt be living on the coast And do know what mechanism was used to put a stop to the smog in America and England, or ozone depleting CFC's? A cap and trade system! Ironies abound... actually it was no such thing. it was regulation on air pollution. and it was DECADES ago. Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what you are talking about, which probably explains why you are a denier, because you simply don't understand things so you get angry at them and start thinking it's some kind of conspiracy against you. . http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/dcee735e22c76aef85257662005f4116/86a2750ed83fe1d88525774200597f3a!OpenDocument

so what do you think got rid of londons massive smog problem 40-50 years ago?? a carbon tax? and ETS - all products of the 90s and 2000s?

Quote:

Quote: By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse. A. The price of carbon will go up gradually. B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start.

it is nothing more than an economic theory that has been tried in the EU and totally failed.

Quote:

so what do you think got rid of londons massive smog problem 40-50 years ago?? a carbon tax? and ETS - all products of the 90s and 2000s?

London? In post war England? Which had  a SOCIALIST government and a COMMAND ECONOMY??? Oh my, the hilarity of it!  ;D

Here's another titbit that exposes the raging cognitive dissonance of the denier movement:


Quote:

Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) praised Reagan last year:    When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ignore his ‘demonstrably good’ example. Nonetheless, she and many of today’s public officials oppose a global warming plan that would employ the innovative cap-and-trade system first created by President Reagan, repudiating his legacy for cheap political gain and to curry favor with polluting industries. The Reagan White House conceived the first cap-and-trade program to reduce pollution, used in the 1980s to phase out lead in gasoline at a lower cost. It was developed as a more flexible, market-based system to reduce environmental pollution compared to the so-called “command and control” model employed by environmental laws in the 1970s. The old system required each polluting facility to make a fixed reduction in air or water contamination, which ignored that some facilities could cut pollution more cheaply than others. An EPA analysis shows:    … estimated savings from the lead trading program of approximately 20 percent over alternative programs that did not provide for lead banking, a cost savings of about $250 million per year. President Reagan also signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to slash the production and use of chemicals that deplete the upper ozone layer essential to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. His administration established a cap-and-trade system to implement the chemical reductions the protocol required. A 2006 scientific assessment concluded that “the Montreal Protocol is working” to reduce chemicals and protect the ozone layer. President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, was the first president to propose the employment of a cap-and-trade system in an environmental law. The Clean Air Act of 1990 includes his proposed cap-and-trade system to reduce the sulfur pollution from power plants responsible for acid rain. The Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89-10 and the House by 401-25. Many staunch conservatives voted for it including Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Conservative House supporters included Reps. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Joe Barton (R-TX), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Fred Upton (R-MI). When President Bush signed the Clean Air Act into law he highlighted its innovative cap-and-trade mechanism:    The acid rain allowance trading program will be the first large-scale regulatory use of market incentives and is already being seen as a model for regulatory reform efforts here and abroad. “To reject this legacy and embrace the failed 1970s policies of one-size-fits-all regulatory mandates would signify unilateral surrender of principled support for markets,” write economists Richard Schmalensee, who worked in the Reagan White House, and Robert Stavins. “If some conservatives oppose energy or climate policies because of disagreement about the threat of climate change or the costs of those policies, so be it. But in the process of debating risks and costs, there should be no tarnishing of market-based policy instruments. Such a scorched-earth approach will come back to haunt when future environmental policies will not be able to use the power of the marketplace to reduce business costs.” http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/22/cap-and-reagan/

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

Quote: Quote: By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse. A. The price of carbon will go up gradually. B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start. it is nothing more than an economic theory that has been tried in the EU and totally failed.

No it didn't, it has had great successes as well as great difficulties. This won't be easy but the historical experience demonstrates that tax and trade is the cheapest and most effective mechanism for reducing emissions.:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/us-carbon-market-idUSTRE61B2AL20100212


Quote:

(Reuters) - The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a success and its flaws have not harmed its basic aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, multi-national research showed on Friday. Experts at French state bank Caisse des Depots, the Paris-Dauphine University, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research in the United States and University College Dublin collaborated to evaluate the scheme's trial period, which has widely been viewed as a failure. The EU's flagship carbon trading scheme requires companies to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Carbon output is capped and the level is lowered year by year. The scheme's first trading phase ran from 2005 to 2007. Installations in the 27-nation bloc were over-allocated with carbon permits and the carbon price fell to zero. The research concluded that although there were many problems in the first phase, they were overcome and did not hamper the scheme's ultimate objective of reducing emissions. "The sometimes voiced argument that the EU ETS has been a failure cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence," the research authors said. Emission cuts were achieved in a cost-effective way, without losing competitiveness, they said. The cost of carbon is also now a firmly established factor in European power market's investment decisions, the research said. The main accomplishment of the trial period was the successful creation of a regulatory mechanism, which will serve to deliver more ambitious emissions cuts and will be the cornerstone of a potential global carbon market. "The EU ETS is a path-breaking policy experiment whose implications will extend far beyond the EU," the authors said. A UK Parliamentary committee criticized the scheme on Monday, saying the carbon price was too low to deliver low-carbon investment. It urged the UK government to press the EU for tighter carbon caps and other measures.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 8:51pm: Quote: Quote: By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse. A. The price of carbon will go up gradually. B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start. it is nothing more than an economic theory that has been tried in the EU and totally failed. No it didn't, it has had great successes as well as great difficulties. This won't be easy but the historical experience demonstrates that tax and trade is the cheapest and most effective mechanism for reducing emissions.: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/us-carbon-market-idUSTRE61B2AL20100212 [quote](Reuters) - The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a success and its flaws have not harmed its basic aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, multi-national research showed on Friday. Experts at French state bank Caisse des Depots, the Paris-Dauphine University, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research in the United States and University College Dublin collaborated to evaluate the scheme's trial period, which has widely been viewed as a failure. The EU's flagship carbon trading scheme requires companies to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Carbon output is capped and the level is lowered year by year. The scheme's first trading phase ran from 2005 to 2007. Installations in the 27-nation bloc were over-allocated with carbon permits and the carbon price fell to zero. The research concluded that although there were many problems in the first phase, they were overcome and did not hamper the scheme's ultimate objective of reducing emissions. "The sometimes voiced argument that the EU ETS has been a failure cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence," the research authors said. Emission cuts were achieved in a cost-effective way, without losing competitiveness, they said. The cost of carbon is also now a firmly established factor in European power market's investment decisions, the research said. The main accomplishment of the trial period was the successful creation of a regulatory mechanism, which will serve to deliver more ambitious emissions cuts and will be the cornerstone of a potential global carbon market. "The EU ETS is a path-breaking policy experiment whose implications will extend far beyond the EU," the authors said. A UK Parliamentary committee criticized the scheme on Monday, saying the carbon price was too low to deliver low-carbon investment. It urged the UK government to press the EU for tighter carbon caps and other measures.

[/quote]


europes a cot case
show a successful country that attributes their success to putting a tax on air.

nah, none.

show me one that a tax on air has cost them big time - almost ALL of them,
has it made any difference - NO.

Thats what the carbon tax and every budget is about isn't it?  Isn't it about blame transference from the ruling class onto the rest? >:(

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Quote: By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse. A. The price of carbon will go up gradually. B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start. [quote]As I have previously posted, it would be much more likely to have the desired impact, IF GHG's (including Fossil Fuels) were legislated for lower production/usage and that was backed up with a carrot & stick Tax approach, where those achieving targets were given Tax credits, whilst those not achieving the legislated level would get a Tax debit.

Well that sounds interesting, it certainly is refreshing to see someone offering an alternative rather than opposing just for the bloody-minded sake of opposition. However, I would need to see something a little more convincing than the opinion of some random guy on an internet forum before being convinced that it really is a solution.


[/quote]

Whilst I understand & agree with the basic reason/s for reducing the impact of GHG's on the Climate system, unfortunately the proposal that increasing the Carbon price will actually make Producers or Consumers change their habits and reduce Carbon emissions, doesn't work in reality!

If the Price signal really worked, then there would already have been massive Carbon emission reductions Globally, as the Price of Oil and most Fossil Fuels have escalated enormously over the last 10 years.

Regrettably, the reality is that Global Oil Consumption has plateaued since 2005, due mostly to Peak Oil production problems, but also because of the Global Economic slowdown, not because of the Price increasing from around $10 a barrel to $147 a barrel in 2008.

Any extra costs that arise via the Carbon Tax will simply be passed on to the Consumers and the size of the Price increase, whilst it may be a nice little tax earner for the government, would pale into insignificance compared to the increases likely to come via the normal Demand & Supply process.

So, unfortunately a Carbon Tax will not get results, certainly not the results needed by Global Climate Change.


I understand your reticence, however it is unlikely that you will see governments (Labor or Liberal) volunteering for this type of approach, as they would be giving away their taxing base and they will be desperate to increase that Tax base, over the next few years, as well as reducing their expenditures.

And you certainly won't get anyone from the Fossil fuel industry volunteering for legislated cuts, because that would mean they have to work harder & smarter, for them to comply and avoid being hit with extra tax.

So, if you want to get any real action, you may just need to evaluate the issues & information yourself, come to your own conclusions, then promote your solutions via the various media mediums available to you and finally actually convince people that your solutions are the proper course of action.

I can tell you, that's not easy, so good luck!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

show me one that a tax on air has cost them big time - almost ALL of them, has it made any difference - NO.

Start with the US, instituted (ironically) by conservative giants Regan and Bush. Acid rain and ozone depleting CFC's. Both prime examples of how effective tax and trade is at reducing levels of other "air" that has been recognised as a pollutant.

http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/dcee735e22c76aef85257662005f4116/86a2750ed83fe1d88525774200597f3a!OpenDocument

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 11:28pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 9:58pm: show me one that a tax on air has cost them big time - almost ALL of them, has it made any difference - NO. Acid rain and ozone depleting CFC's. Both prime examples of how effective tax and trade is at reducing levels of other "air" that has been recognised as a pollutant. http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/dcee735e22c76aef85257662005f4116/86a2750ed83fe1d88525774200597f3a!OpenDocument

All scams to rip off the poor. 8-)

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Quote: so what do you think got rid of londons massive smog problem 40-50 years ago?? a carbon tax? and ETS - all products of the 90s and 2000s? London? In post war England? Which had  a SOCIALIST government and a COMMAND ECONOMY??? Oh my, the hilarity of it!  ;D Here's another titbit that exposes the raging cognitive dissonance of the denier movement: [quote]Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) praised Reagan last year:    When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ignore his ‘demonstrably good’ example. Nonetheless, she and many of today’s public officials oppose a global warming plan that would employ the innovative cap-and-trade system first created by President Reagan, repudiating his legacy for cheap political gain and to curry favor with polluting industries. The Reagan White House conceived the first cap-and-trade program to reduce pollution, used in the 1980s to phase out lead in gasoline at a lower cost. It was developed as a more flexible, market-based system to reduce environmental pollution compared to the so-called “command and control” model employed by environmental laws in the 1970s. The old system required each polluting facility to make a fixed reduction in air or water contamination, which ignored that some facilities could cut pollution more cheaply than others. An EPA analysis shows:    … estimated savings from the lead trading program of approximately 20 percent over alternative programs that did not provide for lead banking, a cost savings of about $250 million per year. President Reagan also signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to slash the production and use of chemicals that deplete the upper ozone layer essential to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. His administration established a cap-and-trade system to implement the chemical reductions the protocol required. A 2006 scientific assessment concluded that “the Montreal Protocol is working” to reduce chemicals and protect the ozone layer. President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, was the first president to propose the employment of a cap-and-trade system in an environmental law. The Clean Air Act of 1990 includes his proposed cap-and-trade system to reduce the sulfur pollution from power plants responsible for acid rain. The Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89-10 and the House by 401-25. Many staunch conservatives voted for it including Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Conservative House supporters included Reps. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Joe Barton (R-TX), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Fred Upton (R-MI). When President Bush signed the Clean Air Act into law he highlighted its innovative cap-and-trade mechanism:    The acid rain allowance trading program will be the first large-scale regulatory use of market incentives and is already being seen as a model for regulatory reform efforts here and abroad. “To reject this legacy and embrace the failed 1970s policies of one-size-fits-all regulatory mandates would signify unilateral surrender of principled support for markets,” write economists Richard Schmalensee, who worked in the Reagan White House, and Robert Stavins. “If some conservatives oppose energy or climate policies because of disagreement about the threat of climate change or the costs of those policies, so be it. But in the process of debating risks and costs, there should be no tarnishing of market-based policy instruments. Such a scorched-earth approach will come back to haunt when future environmental policies will not be able to use the power of the marketplace to reduce business costs.” http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/22/cap-and-reagan/

[/quote]

despite your mocking, the facts are that Londons massive smog problem was resolved long before ETS systems were even thought of.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 8:51pm: Quote: Quote: By creating a Carbon Tax or a cap n trade system, they can raise tax to pay down Debt or use the Tax to offest Expenditure and HOPE that the increased taxes force some reduction in Fossil Fuel/GHG useage. Now, a reduction in Fossil Fuel usage, via these means, could happen, but the Tax impact would have to be very high, for it to have any substantial effect of GHG's. This process would enhance the Economic negatives already in the system and make matters worse. A. The price of carbon will go up gradually. B. It's not a "hope", there is ample of evidence that markets react to signals. Industry will find ways to avoid costs by reducing their emissions while capital will look to cleaner investments. It's far from a solution but it's a damn good start. it is nothing more than an economic theory that has been tried in the EU and totally failed. No it didn't, it has had great successes as well as great difficulties. This won't be easy but the historical experience demonstrates that tax and trade is the cheapest and most effective mechanism for reducing emissions.: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/us-carbon-market-idUSTRE61B2AL20100212 [quote](Reuters) - The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a success and its flaws have not harmed its basic aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, multi-national research showed on Friday. Experts at French state bank Caisse des Depots, the Paris-Dauphine University, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research in the United States and University College Dublin collaborated to evaluate the scheme's trial period, which has widely been viewed as a failure. The EU's flagship carbon trading scheme requires companies to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Carbon output is capped and the level is lowered year by year. The scheme's first trading phase ran from 2005 to 2007. Installations in the 27-nation bloc were over-allocated with carbon permits and the carbon price fell to zero. The research concluded that although there were many problems in the first phase, they were overcome and did not hamper the scheme's ultimate objective of reducing emissions. "The sometimes voiced argument that the EU ETS has been a failure cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence," the research authors said. Emission cuts were achieved in a cost-effective way, without losing competitiveness, they said. The cost of carbon is also now a firmly established factor in European power market's investment decisions, the research said. The main accomplishment of the trial period was the successful creation of a regulatory mechanism, which will serve to deliver more ambitious emissions cuts and will be the cornerstone of a potential global carbon market. "The EU ETS is a path-breaking policy experiment whose implications will extend far beyond the EU," the authors said. A UK Parliamentary committee criticized the scheme on Monday, saying the carbon price was too low to deliver low-carbon investment. It urged the UK government to press the EU for tighter carbon caps and other measures.

[/quote]

yet despite your waffle and grandiose ideas, the EU itself admits that the ETS has done NOTHING to reduce emissions. which is scarecely surprising.