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.

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?

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.

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


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.

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.

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

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




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-20090...

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

A new 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 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

.