Quote:


Quote:


What I said was, "1) 40 years in the Financial sector, a lot of research & some logical assessments! How about you?"

I was asking what your background is, like I gave mine, not what you have written.

Btw, I have read quite a bit of what you have written, some I agree with & some I don't!

That said, you have as much right to you opinions, as anyone else, including me, I & myself.

Quote:


Quote:


My full quote was, in fact -
2) My preferred model would be to -
a) Set lower levels of Emmissions & Usage, accross all industries, say 5-10% per year.
b) Use the Tax Carrot, to reward the achievement of those lower levels, by providing tax credits.
c) Use the Tax Stick, to penalise those who do not achieve the target levels, by hitting them with a Carbon Tax Excise, for want of a better term.

And, I am happy to go with that.

If any industry, including Coal Electricity generation, can reduce their GHG's and get some tax concessions, that's ok! If they don't make their target of 5-10 GHG reduction each year, then they will pay more.

And the same goes for car makers, if they can reduce their vehilce GHG's & fuel consumption figures, then they should get a concession otherwise a tax slug.

Given that transport is one of the big Consummers & emitters, they are just as vital as the power generators & heavy industry!

Quote:


I have studied economics at an American and an Australian university. I have discussed this very issue with many people over many years.

I also have a statement of economic consensus to back me up. And a logical explanation.

Quote:


Is this the extent of your 'logical explanation'? Every time you are pressed, you resort to 'I am entitled to my opinion'. I thought you said you had an explanation, not just an opinion?

Quote:


Duh. They did. On a very large scale. So large in fact that it frequently made headlines.

Quote:


So you know what I am talking about? Sometimes it is hard to tell.

Quote:


Is there anything about my question that is answered by this? I can't see it. So here it is again. Why do you think it is a good idea to start subsidising electricity consumption. The fact that you want to do other things as well doesn't really explain why you think the subsidies are a good idea.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:01pm:



This is a crap argument, FD.


Taxing energy is harmful to the economy because energy is not French liptick.  The 'economy' is what people do. It is not a friggin' conspiracy against Mother Nature or the 'woykeys'.
Most of all, it is not something the government has a special claim to.

Soren wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 10:37pm:


What other sides are there Soren? The ignorant side? The 'I want another handout' side? The 'I have a perpetual motion machine for sale' side?

Here is a copy of the statement of economic consensus for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

Every economist I have spoken to about the issue agrees that pricing mechanisms are the way to go.

Quote:


Love your logic there Soren.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 10:45pm:



FD, your 'I don't know what is everyone is talking about' schtick is wearing thin.

The other side of taxation (a mechanism of interfereing with price) is to make the price of another things lower (another interference with price).

Don't tell me you still haven't grasped that there are always two ways to interfere with prices: making one thing dearer OR making another thing cheap.

Look back - Muso even highligheted the pertinent bit in yellow. That ought to have helped.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 10:48pm:



Utter crap, FD. You cannot talk about GHG emissions without talking about energy. You are not proposing a tax on very exhalation and fart (methane) by every cow and sheep and human and his dog.
You are proposing a tax on burning coal and oil.