Green Shift Tax is a bandaid. Consumption will increase due to population growth. Alternative energy sources can negate any bandaid tax.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 1:25pm:


It is not an assumption. Population is growing in this country by over 4% each year. If Green Shift Tax reduces emissions by 12% it would only have a minimal lifespan and as I said it just becomes a bandaid.

Sorry, should have explained properly.

What you save today will grow back due to population increase to a point of their is no saving to todays standards. There is no need for a new tax, just a new energy source.

Energy output increases when there is growth.

On the note of growth, your proposal is to restrict industry growth to the energy they can afford. If they want growth they would have to increase their prices to achieve this. Increased costs would eventually mean increased prices to the consumer.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:

For the same reduction in emissions, a carbon tax would increase the marginal cost of electricity by less than government enforced solutions like wind, solar, geothermal etc.

If you mandate say 10% renewable energy (it is now less than 1% in Australia), it won't stop energy consumption going up. They will keep building coal fired plants as well as the odd wind farm.

Also, please check the FAQ I put up: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html

I think that explains it better.

What your saying is that Green Shift Tax is only there as an alternative to Carbon Trading.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is better than carbon trading, but certainly not that it is 'only' an alternative to that option.

This Consumption Tax, Energy Tax or Green Shift Tax focuses on reducing consumption by penalising with a new tax.

Only to the extent that reducing consumption is the best way to reduce emissions.

As previously stated solving the problem is by creating NO greenhouse emissions in the first place.

However quickly you want to reduce emissions, and however far you want to go, a green tax shift is the best way to achieve that. Unless you want to suddenly ban emissions completely - anything short of that and a green tax shift is the best way to go.

By changing the power source allows this to happen.

And a green tax shift is the best way to achieve that.

We still need energy and the more we have dictates our growth.

Energy does not dictate our growth any more.

You keep assuming that a green tax shift will give you only one type of solution and that we really need other solutions. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

This is an interesting idea - tracking vehicles and charging them for distace travelled. It is being discussed in Britain. It has the advantage that you can charge people more during peak hour and so use it to reduce the amount of infrastructure required. The drawbacks are that the government tracks your every move, and it is a less direct measure of carbon emissions and wear. It would be suitable as an additional tax only for those who use the roads when they are most congested, thus adding to infrastructure costs, but petrol taxes should cover wear and tear and greenhouse emissions, and should be implimented first given that the economic systems are already in place to tax petrol.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-road-pricing-petition-wins-backers/2007/01/10/1168105051101.html

A petition which calls for plans to introduce road pricing to be scrapped has attracted more than 165,000 signatures since it was launched on Prime Minister Tony Blair's Downing Street web site.

Initial estimates suggest it could cost drivers up to STG1.34 ($A3.30) a mile to drive in the busiest areas at rush hour.

Transport chiefs argue that unless radical action is taken there will be gridlock on some of Britain's roads in 20-30 years.