DO YOU SUPPORT GILLARDS CARBON TAX ?

[rossop]

Yes I support it

 

[stryker]

Our manufactures should not be allowed , to s*** on our Country . And if they do they should pay .
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Wow…some deep thinking going on here!

..and how excactly will pricing carbon, a non pollutant, alleviate this so called problem of yours?

 

[spudoakes]

the carbon tax should be seen as an opportunity not a curse
Unfortunately there will be some pain -loss of jobs and price hikes
But in the long run it should force Australia to become a pioner of sustainable, non polluting technologies which hopefully can be sold internationally
We need to have a commercial edge above international markets
its a time to think long term not short term

and how much of the carbon tax do u think will be going into such technologies
:bash

 

[Winnipeg]

and how much of the carbon tax do u think will be going into such technologies
:bash

10 billion dollars

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/clean-energy-finance-corporation-takes-shape/3957104

 

[stryker]

I would be surprised if thats the figure Winnipeg. Swan and co just seem to pull figures out of their collective backsides.

 

[genoshan]

As the manager of a shopping centre, I have been instructed by our financiers to allow a massive 14 % increase in expenses mostly in the energy column. Considering that after saving 250 kWh this year, our cost savings were minimal.

This tax has a massive follow on effect, unlike the GST which is passed on only once, every item grown & manufactured out of this country will have the carbon tax added to it. The whole tax is a cruel joke and if anyone here believes people will be better off with this tax, you are dead wrong.,

 

[Winnipeg]

I would be surprised if thats the figure Winnipeg. Swan and co just seem to pull figures out of their collective backsides.

well the full funding allocation will be legislated ahead of time so you think their figures must have some factual basis

http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/green-loan-scheme-to-be-abbottproofed-20120417-1x5op.html

 

[MacDougall]

From what I can see manufacturers are going way overboard with their prince increases and what not. Using the carbon tax as an excuse to raise even more profits than they are currently.

 

[Saturnalia]

From what I can see manufacturers are going way overboard with their prince increases and what not. Using the carbon tax as an excuse to raise even more profits than they are currently.

I expect bumper profits as well.

see taxes help the economy grow :laughing:

 

[stryker]

I would be surprised if thats the figure Winnipeg. Swan and co just seem to pull figures out of their collective backsides.

well the full funding allocation will be legislated ahead of time so you think their figures must have some factual basis

http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/green-loan-scheme-to-be-abbottproofed-20120417-1x5op.html

You would assume so wouldnt you? However this mob have proven time and again that they can not use a calculator properly…..

Gauranteeing 2 Bill a year is stupid when they havent even seen how much this silly tax will bring in.

 

[BRET]

I am shocked the vote is so close! I must of missed the expensive advertising campaign in support of the tax?

Anyway – here is a video I found interesting that explains the carbon in the atmosphere and how much of it we contribute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8&feature=share

 

[Winnipeg]

You would assume so wouldnt you? However this mob have proven time and again that they can not use a calculator properly…..

Gauranteeing 2 Bill a year is stupid when they havent even seen how much this silly tax will bring in.

when you say 'this mob', this isn't Wayne Swan sitting there with a sheet of paper and a pocket calculator, there has been fairly extensive modelling by Treasury and further independent modelling which came up with similar results.

being as the tax is levied on the top 500 emitting companies, and these companies are not likely to be reducing their emissions in the immediate term, the Fed Govt would be pretty confident on what sort of revenue the tax will bring in. If the companies do somehow manage to cut their emissions, they'll be paying less tax and I imagine the Fed Govt would look at adjusting the compensation accordingly.

Look, I don't mind people saying that they don't like the carbon tax, that it's the wrong time, or that the price is too high. But they need to understand that Abbott's scheme will be more expensive, paid for by our taxes, and has no guarantee of working.

It may be that he is planning to change his policy post election, and will keep the carbon tax (maybe dropping the price a bit), or will reneg on a bunch of international agreements as to how much Australia will reduce our emissions. In which case, would he be any better than 'Juliar'?

 

[Winnipeg]

I am shocked the vote is so close! I must of missed the expensive advertising campaign in support of the tax?

Anyway – here is a video I found interesting that explains the carbon in the atmosphere and how much of it we contribute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8&feature=share

That video asks the question 'how can such a small percentage have any effect', and the simple answer is 'well, it does'.

It ignores over a century of science all pointing to the fact that human activity is producing a change in the climate. It ignores things like feedback loops, such as this.

1\. A small rise in CO2 causes a small rise in temperature
2\. Small rise in temperature causes a small amount of polar ice to melt
3\. ground and ocean formerly covered by polar ice absorbs more of the sun's radiation, causing further warming
4\. repeat

You can claim that global warming is some sort of hoax if you want, but just know that you are going against practically 100% of the scientific community on this.

Also, as I said before, you should know that Tony Abbott and the Coalition supports the same 5% emissions reduction targets as Labor, voting for them is not a protest against some sort of global warming hoax, it is basically endorsing Abbott's more expensive scheme which has the support of neither economists nor environmentalists.

 

[stryker]

I dont support either parties scheme. I think the whole thing is a load of crap. I dont mind investigations into renewable energy, but object to billions being allocated to enterprises that will be less effective than what we already have.

 

[Winnipeg]

I dont support either parties scheme. I think the whole thing is a load of crap. I dont mind investigations into renewable energy, but object to billions being allocated to enterprises that will be less effective than what we already have.

I haven't replied to this in a while because I'm not sure what else to say.
\
\
You're entitled to that opinion I guess. The thing is, the earlier that renewable energy sources are implemented, the smoother the transition will be. There will be a lot more pain trying to hurry things later.
\
\
Australia isn't really in a position to say 'stuff you' to the rest of the world and do nothing about climate change. Other countries are acting and we need to act too.
\
\
China and India implementing emissions trading schemes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/10/carbon-tax-emissions-trading-international

South Korea (supported by both sides of Parliament)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/south-korea-approves-emissions-trading-system-20120503-1y0ja.html

The US does not have a system, but California, in itself the world's 5th largest economy, does
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-state-of-california-adopts-an-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6so-1226172986886
\
\
\
of course if you're of the opinion that Climate Change is an enormous hoax then all of these are not valid and there's not much point discussing it.

 

[Tigersmurf]

Is the issue that Climate Change is a hoax, or whether it is man made? The evidence clearly supports the fact that the oceans are getting progressively warmer but is this due to us or a natural phenomenon?

The carbon tax is merely that - a tax. The government spent all its money on constructing school buildings to combat the GFC, and both this and the mining tax were convenient ways of recovering the money.

Personally, I think we are as responsible for global warming as the Woolly Mamoths were of causing the ice age!

 

[Saturnalia]

the real question then becomes

man-made or natural, does it make a difference to the outcome?

i.e. Are you really going to care if it is man-made or not if the sea-levels continue to rise?

 

[Yossarian]

Is the issue that Climate Change is a hoax, or whether it is man made? The evidence clearly supports the fact that the oceans are getting progressively warmer but is this due to us or a natural phenomenon?

The carbon tax is merely that - a tax. The government spent all its money on constructing school buildings to combat the GFC, and both this and the mining tax were convenient ways of recovering the money.

Personally, I think we are as responsible for global warming as the Woolly Mamoths were of causing the ice age!

Well you're obviously entitled to your opinion but there is a massive amount of scientifically evaluated data out there compiled by people who are experts in the field who would strongly disagree.

Your comments on the Carbon price show a lack of understanding as to its purpose. It is paying out as much as it takes in - it is not a revenue raiser for the government.

 

[Tigersmurf]

Is the issue that Climate Change is a hoax, or whether it is man made? The evidence clearly supports the fact that the oceans are getting progressively warmer but is this due to us or a natural phenomenon?

The carbon tax is merely that - a tax. The government spent all its money on constructing school buildings to combat the GFC, and both this and the mining tax were convenient ways of recovering the money.

Personally, I think we are as responsible for global warming as the Woolly Mamoths were of causing the ice age!

Well you're obviously entitled to your opinion but there is a massive amount of scientifically evaluated data out there compiled by people who are experts in the field who would strongly disagree.

Your comments on the Carbon price show a lack of understanding as to its purpose. It is paying out as much as it takes in - it is not a revenue raiser for the government.

Then how does it actually achieve anything? Put up power prices, and then reimburse society so they can continue to chew through fossil fuels at the same rate.

There is a lot of scientific evidence to support climate change, and a lot against it too. If I know anything about scientists, it is that many of them survive of funding and grants. As such it is in their interest to manipulate (for loss of a better word), the evidence to suit their argument.

I am all for doing anything that improves our environment, but I have not yet heard anyone present a debate that convinces me that this is the way to do it.

 

[Yossarian]

Is the issue that Climate Change is a hoax, or whether it is man made? The evidence clearly supports the fact that the oceans are getting progressively warmer but is this due to us or a natural phenomenon?

The carbon tax is merely that - a tax. The government spent all its money on constructing school buildings to combat the GFC, and both this and the mining tax were convenient ways of recovering the money.

Personally, I think we are as responsible for global warming as the Woolly Mamoths were of causing the ice age!

Well you're obviously entitled to your opinion but there is a massive amount of scientifically evaluated data out there compiled by people who are experts in the field who would strongly disagree.

Your comments on the Carbon price show a lack of understanding as to its purpose. It is paying out as much as it takes in - it is not a revenue raiser for the government.

Then how does it actually achieve anything? Put up power prices, and then reimburse society so they can continue to chew through fossil fuels at the same rate.

There is a lot of scientific evidence to support climate change, and a lot against it too. If I know anything about scientists, it is that many of them survive of funding and grants. As such it is in their interest to manipulate (for loss of a better word), the evidence to suit their argument.

I am all for doing anything that improves our environment, but I have not yet heard anyone present a debate that convinces me that this is the way to do it.

It achieves something by raising the price as a disincentive for some and to provide a competitive advantage to others. Same way cigarette and booze taxes are designed to drive down demand. But the carbon price redirects the money it takes in to provide compensation to low income earners and to provide support for non-carbon energy producers.

There is very little to zero scientific data that indicates that 1\. global temperatures aren't rising and 2\. the most likely if not definite cause of this is human input. Only people (and this is not aimed at you) who deliberately misuse the data or don't understand it (I'm looking at you Alan Jones) claim it doesn't.

I doubt anything will convince you but read the CSIRO reports or the UN environomental reports.