Given that so many people complained on The Gold coast about the councils 10% rate rises which amounted to about $200 or $4 a week

Why ar epeople voting for labor when they'll get an ETS which will rip between $50 and $100 a week out of your pocket??


Why do you want an ETS?????

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?

laborfornever wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 7:53pm:

You're a typical fascist hiding behind any and every excuse you can find to not contribute to society!

No one likes your attitude and when you lose the young voters we will all laugh!

Have fun behind that big fence of yours mister scaredy cat!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 8:02pm:



Gawd!!! Thick doesn't even begin to describe this response. You'll be voting Green, I can see.

We will be paying more if we don't act.

And the higher the rate of reduction, the cheaper it will be for the economy.

Also those suggesting the path of inaction on the bases of our pulling our weight will not make an impact ... what would happen if people stopped paying tax because one person couldn't afford to build a hospital.

pull your finger out and let some air in to that grey matter you sit on.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

Im suggesting a country who's stock market is still tanked and the global economy is still far from rosy, why risk out economic future now.

We should not be doing anything until we are in a position to do so.  A two or three year wait, along with some money from the mining tax kicking in will make it much more affordable.

____ wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:


Green, according to this article it's too late anyway:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89914

So is there really any point?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 11:01pm:

bugger of IQSRLOW, you're banned from here, why havn't the mods banned you again?As for the rest of your sh1t, without changes there wont be a world economy, why are rightards so stupid that they only think about what goes into their pocket today? why do Liberal supporters hate kids? why dont you want this next generation of kids to have the same chance you got? inbred tard.

IQSRLOW is banned from here, if you wont do something I'll have to go over your head.
Thanks for not doing your job, thanks for nothing.

Just think, with an ETS African Dictators can buy much more then small arms. Just think how much their military would grow with us funding it though the ETS. They will no longer be chopping off the hands of voters who appose them they will be able to use other more expensive methods. It would also help increase pollution levels in china and India and manufacturing would grind to a halt in Australia.

See this is were the ETS falls over BIG TIME.

1. The Rudd government stated the government would compensate households due to the increase in costs. Agree?

2. Wong has said any company needing to buy carbon credits can do so from any country that sells carbon credits, Brazil for example they hav emassive carbon bank in the amazon. Agree?

OK

So if companies buy their credits from an overseas company that is money sent offshore, billions of dollars, Agree?


Now Rudd has said the governemnt will compensate households, how does the government propose to do that if the carbon permit buyers are buying permits from overseas and not from Australian carbon credit providers, IE the government.

How can or will the government be able to afford to compensate consumers when the money from buying credits is going to another country??

That will leave a massive funding gap of billions of dollars. How can that possibly be feasable???


Another classic example of labor party financial mismanagement, and you people vote for them. My god are you too stupid to see just how incompetant they are???

They could not run a choko vine over a shithouse

The


Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.
The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant.
Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or credits) equivalent to their emissions.
The total amount of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level.

Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.
The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade.


Thus,  those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.




It's pretty basic stuff, really

Big Donger wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:51am:


"applause"
Fantastic post
Factual without the scare mongering from either side
Very much like most of the stuff I've read here and elsewhere before we yahoo's brought our baggage, perhaps we should try more to fit in rather than running the locals over with petty squabbles
I think  your question has been answered L4N

FFS, do you right whingers want globalisation or not!?

laborfornever wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 11:09am:


Your argument doesn't have anything to do with an ETS or a price on carbon.

However, your solution is that people should use more electricity to keep prices down.

Not a very sustainable argument, is it?

You're also forgetting that most electricty costs come through electricity use at peak hours. If our electricity use was even throughout the day, bills would be cut by about 60%: the extra costs are borne by the cost of infrastructure needed to maintain peak supply.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:51am:



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?????

laborfornever wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:


Compared to options like Abbott's, it will do far less harm to the economy.

I personally prefer a tax, like what the Greens are promoting at the moment. You could use the revenue to lower other taxes, further reducing the economic impact.

Quote:


So because we sit on a huge patch of empty desert, we are not actually greedy and wasteful, we are actually just as poor as the Indians?

Thanks, Gizmo.

I'll consider you enlightened then, dahling.

This is where your blinkere din your perfect world.

The only real thing that you can cut consumption is electricity.

So with everything else you need to survive how do you cut your food consumption, how does a company that uses products from a range of ETS effected companies charge less or the same for its product when it is paying more for its goods. Think house construction car construction.

A mining company just got drilled with Gillards mining tax, they will now be liable for ETS as very energy intense to mine and transport ore. China pays more for its ore, meaning our car manafacturers pay more for the processed ore. How do I cut my consumption on that??

How much will electrical companents go up as many have mined minerals in them, again dug up by mining companies now paying and ETS passed onto the end consumer.

That glass table just cost more because turning sand into glass is a massively energy intense process so all you glass goods go up, that includes windows in houses which I forgot to include earlier.

everything you touch or wear will go up, farmers who produce cotton will pay more to produce sell for more to china who charge more to our importers who yes will charge more to the consumer??


There are so many factors that you seem to overlook, wether your a bit simple or just trying to push labor policy I don't know. But rest assured an ETS will hammer middle and low income earners, send uncompetitive industry offshore, cost jobs force famillies into bankruptcy have households living in the street.

is that the country you want to live in??? All to save a .4% reduction in carbon??? it is just illogical.

Quote:


Not true at all. There are hundreds of ways you can cut your GHG footprint.

The cost of doing nothing is far greater than the cost of a simple price on carbon and the longer we wait the greater the financial and environmental cost.
I would rather make a few simple adjustments now than heap a much bigger burden on my kids and grand kids 

Quote:

I call bullsh1t and so does Labor internal polling

I know that this issue is one they are running from like a frightened kangaroo 

Why else has Gillard/Labor stalled and invented the most cynical, transparent and gutless policies ever in the form of a "citizens assembly"- it is laughable

You haven't convinced me nor THE MAJORITY of the need at all.
Quote:

Why do you feel the need to lie?

Link, or you lie.

You will have to produce the transcript that Abbott actually said bullshit, or you will forever be labelled as a liar 

A liitle cnfusion perhaps,it was a coilition member who used bullshit but in the context of describing his own parties policy, who I here you ask, well the only one with courage of his convictions of course a MR Turnbull

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit...

While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott, was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy.

So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.
Advertisement: Story continues below

To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.

The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions.

The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement".

It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for.

Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right.

Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it.

Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....."

Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement.

Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.

Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well

Pants been extinguished yet skippy?

No, you have proven that your are a liar.

That's enough for me

Liar liar skip 

skippy. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:27pm:



NO skippy...Kevin Rudd said Labor doesn't 'intend to do anything until 2013'....However Rudd is NO longer in charge....

For all we know...Gillard 'might' want to bring the ETS back tomorrow....

It would make more sense to have a carbon tax.  Europe demonstrated how easy it was for corporations to weasel out of an ETS. As a result, Kyoto accomplished nothing. The world went backwards.

If necessary, keep the Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed  scheme , and gradually phase it out as renewable energy becomes cheaper.

The emphasis needs to be on making renewable energy cheaper to maximise the uptake.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 2:11pm:


The more I see from Turnbull, the more I like him. It is a great shame he lost the coalition leadership. It would have made this election very interesting. I would have been voting liberal.

Quote:

Quote:


Who are you trying to convince? 

But considering the state of Labor with just changing the face at the helm then it might not be unheard of for the convictionless voter

Quote:


Labor thanks you for the vote 

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:02pm:


Yes I know that will be the result in the end and I'm not happy about that

its a tax on air, to support gillardsw big hot air govt with talkfests for the cretins

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:

Like I said the lesser of 2 evils I also said Greens and EVERY other party before those 2(except the religious nutters).

And that's the beauty of where we live, you can vote your way & I can vote mine but in the end we can both go home and to the ballot box without the fear of persecution for that vote.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:56pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:56pm:


Nobody likes taxes, but you have to get the money for your incentive scheme from somewhere. If you put a carbon tax on coal production (most of which goes overseas anyway) then use the proceeds to fund solar thermal projects, isn't that what we'd be doing anyway? Of course that would make coal-fired power generation more expensive, and geothermal/ solar etc cheaper.

Which would only make sense if you were also able to tax the rest

Quote:


That is not the point of a tax on carbon. The tax itself is the goal. The funds raised should be used to reduce other taxes, not wasted.

It is if you end up subsidising energy.