...that is the state of this abbott/turnbull government?

Hey, i know, ...lets ,... wait wait  ::) ::) ::) ;D, ...lets,... wait  ;D ;D ;D ;D,... let's bring back tony the joke  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Good thing that Turdbull let us know during question time today that it's not a price on carbon, it's a price on reliability. So in future it will not be referred to as a carbon tax, it is a reliability tax. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The sad thing is that we will end up with carbon trading and the system we had with a fixed carbon price was far superior and a greater benefit to Australians. The problem was that Abbott wanted to win an election and created a great scare campaign.

I agree with DNA. A fixed carbon price makes far more sense. Otherwise the price will fluctuate wildly, which is not exactly great for encouraging long term investment in emissions reduction.

Mass confusion results. Dastardly Mal has got them all spinning out of control and getting votes from both sides.

Apparently renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, problem solved.

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

I agree with DNA. A fixed carbon price makes far more sense. Otherwise the price will fluctuate wildly, which is not exactly great for encouraging long term investment in emissions reduction.

You need to look deeper.

If the carbon price will "fluctuate wildly", what is the cause of this fluctuation? The most likely cause: global economic activity (if the price is linked to the global market). The price would be generally higher when the global economy is strong, and lower when the global economy is weak. Either way, it would act to moderate the global economy. A fixed price cannot do that.

Short-term fluctuations will also exist, but these would be inconsequential. The prices of all kinds of commodities fluctuate a lot too, do these short-term fluctuations discourage investment? No, of course not.

Over the longer term, the price may be at levels perceived by governments to be too low or too high. It is likely that governments, central banks and other similar organisations may intervene as needed to stabilise the price as they already do with currencies.

miketrees wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 8:36am:

Apparently renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, problem solved.

Unless you need them for base load power then, they are extremely expensive and fkking useless.


But hey, they 1% isn't going to fix itself is it?

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:09am:

miketrees wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 8:36am: Apparently renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, problem solved. Unless you need them for base load power then, they are extremely expensive and fkking useless. But hey, they 1% isn't going to fix itself is it?

Big ol doesn't even know what baseload means!

;D

Bam wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:02am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:42pm: I agree with DNA. A fixed carbon price makes far more sense. Otherwise the price will fluctuate wildly, which is not exactly great for encouraging long term investment in emissions reduction. You need to look deeper. If the carbon price will "fluctuate wildly", what is the cause of this fluctuation? The most likely cause: global economic activity (if the price is linked to the global market). The price would be generally higher when the global economy is strong, and lower when the global economy is weak. Either way, it would act to moderate the global economy. A fixed price cannot do that. Short-term fluctuations will also exist, but these would be inconsequential. The prices of all kinds of commodities fluctuate a lot too, do these short-term fluctuations discourage investment? No, of course not. Over the longer term, the price may be at levels perceived by governments to be too low or too high. It is likely that governments, central banks and other similar organisations may intervene as needed to stabilise the price as they already do with currencies.

The major flaws with carbon trading is that it is corrupt and poorly targeted as well as resulting in the money raised flowing out of the country to benefit others.

Where with the fixed system the cash raised in Australia benefited primarily Australia's own carbon abatement and development of solutions. It also was not impacted or controlled by international crime syndicates and subject to high levels of fraud and misuse.