gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 20
th, 2010 at 9:41pm:
____ 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...
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?????
Forum
Pages: 
