Does anyone have a link to the original article in The Australian?

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208252_10151229361668663_2014945255_n.jpg

The real impact of the carbon tax will be when its revenue is invested into renewable projects which suplement the existing power supplies.  (the carrot)

The reduction seen so far would be from efficiency gains made by business to offset the tax.  (the stick).

If those investments cost more per unit of emissions reductions than the tax does, there is no point investing in them. If there is a point investing in them, the private sector will do it a lot faster and cheaper than the government. Just because you raise the revenue from carbon taxes does not mean you have to spend it on expensive renewable schemes.


Quote:

The reduction seen so far would be from efficiency gains made by business

Businesses and consumers. As well as plain old reductions in consumption.

Good thread!

does anyone really believe that nonsense figure of 8.6% That came from where? Milnes backside?

no, it doesnt work. it has had zero effect anywhere it has been trialled before. given that practically no changes have been made to emitting sources eg brown coal power stations, where have these mythical cuts come from?

simple: they havent happened. just like everything else in the wonderland of climate statistics they are misinterpreted, misgathered, incompetently collected and interpreted or just plain fraudulently manufactured.

Australia could emit zero emissions and it would make absolutely f*ck all difference to anything.

Actually GM, it references the Australian, hence my question about whether anyone has the article.

Saying it has had zero effect anywhere is pretty stupid. There is sound economic reasoning behind it. It is always amusing to see people attempt to discard basic economics for political gain.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 6:16pm:

Australia could emit zero emissions and it would make absolutely f*ck all difference to anything.

That being fact, but the labor cling ons can't admitt it.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Actually GM, it references the Australian, hence my question about whether anyone has the article. Saying it has had zero effect anywhere is pretty stupid. There is sound economic reasoning behind it. It is always amusing to see people attempt to discard basic economics for political gain.

Try telling that to the Europeans whos OWN CONCLUSION is that their carbon tax had zero effect on emissions. it isnt 'basic economics' at all. it is a far more complex equation than that.

For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect.

If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for
renewable energy projects come from?

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 6:16pm:

Australia could emit zero emissions and it would make absolutely f*ck all difference to anything.

WRONG again bysexual !!

Consumers wouldn't get ripped off at the fool bowser anymore ;)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:41pm:

If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from?

the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :(

Yes Nail,
what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura?

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 1st, 2013 at 6:16pm: Australia could emit zero emissions and it would make absolutely f*ck all difference to anything. WRONG again bysexual !! Consumers wouldn't get ripped off at the fool bowser anymore ;)

70c per liter for me big man ....

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:31pm:

For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect.

the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions.
end of story.

The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach,

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:41pm:

If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from?

the same place they came from before 7 months ago.

Maybe a good place would be for them to come from viable power projects instead of needing taxpayer support to survive.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:30pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect. the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions. end of story. The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach,

No they didn't GM. And the opening post gave some figures regarding the extent of the effect.

BTW, the approach is called economics, no science. We no not do experiments on people's way of life.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:30pm: freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect. the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions. end of story. The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach, No they didn't GM. And the opening post gave some figures regarding the extent of the effect. BTW, the approach is called economics, no science. We no not do experiments on people's way of life.

for someone who would be normally considered bright, that is stupid. the Europeans themselves (note, not the greens nor the australian newspaper) states that the carbon tax  had had no effect on emissions. i really dont care if you believe it or not because clearly that has no affect on your thinking.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura?

it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:30pm: freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect. the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions. end of story. The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach, No they didn't GM. And the opening post gave some figures regarding the extent of the effect. BTW, the approach is called economics, no science. We no not do experiments on people's way of life.

that gave me a giggle... are you chanelling SOB at the moment?

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:30pm: freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect. the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions. end of story. The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach, No they didn't GM. And the opening post gave some figures regarding the extent of the effect. BTW, the approach is called economics, no science. We no not do experiments on people's way of life.

Economics?
You mean price and demand?

Make turning the light on so oppressive they sit in the dark?
Make taking a plane so high people don't get to see their family?

Make the cost of utilities so harsh people simply exist rather than live.

You're right it is economic cost and demand curve.
It is also complete uncaring to drive up the price of living with a tax.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used.

It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :(

Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :(

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:05pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:54pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:30pm: freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: For something so complicated you are offering a very simplistic interpretation. The Europeans did not conclude that a carbon tax had zero effect. the europeans concluded that the carbon tax had had no effect on emmisions. end of story. The problem with your post was that you assumed that it MUSt have an effect. Hardly a scientific approach, No they didn't GM. And the opening post gave some figures regarding the extent of the effect. BTW, the approach is called economics, no science. We no not do experiments on people's way of life. for someone who would be normally considered bright, that is stupid. the Europeans themselves (note, not the greens nor the australian newspaper) states that the carbon tax  had had no effect on emissions. i really dont care if you believe it or not because clearly that has no affect on your thinking.

That is not what they actually said GM. You are confused. You are seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.

Nail,

Quote:

It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination

Hear hear Nail,
Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy.
These projects are expensive to set up.
Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses
would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model.

The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever
until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse -
that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:28pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used. It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :( Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :(

lunatic... it failed because it simply didnt work.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:35pm:

Nail, Quote: It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination Hear hear Nail, Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy. These projects are expensive to set up. Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model. The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse - that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want.

which is my point dimwit. Without a taxpayer subsidy,  they are unviable.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:35pm: Nail, Quote: It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination Hear hear Nail, Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy. These projects are expensive to set up. Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model. The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse - that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want. which is my point dimwit. Without a taxpayer subsidy,  they are unviable.

Longweekend - you're a half wit.
What about the cost of pollution?

How else will we reduce pollution?

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used. It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :( Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :( lunatic... it failed because it simply didnt work.

wrong again f,.ckhead !!

Solar funding round leaves Mildura in the dark

Date
    November 12, 2012

http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-funding-round-leaves-mildura-in-the-dark-20121112-2978p.html

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:43pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:35pm: Nail, Quote: It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination Hear hear Nail, Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy. These projects are expensive to set up. Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model. The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse - that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want. which is my point dimwit. Without a taxpayer subsidy,  they are unviable. Longweekend - you're a half wit. What about the cost of pollution? How else will we reduce pollution?

you are assumign CO2 is a pollutant. It isnt and increasing numbers of people are begining to agree.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:43pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:35pm: Nail, Quote: It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination Hear hear Nail, Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy. These projects are expensive to set up. Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model. The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse - that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want. which is my point dimwit. Without a taxpayer subsidy,  they are unviable. Longweekend - you're a half wit. What about the cost of pollution? How else will we reduce pollution?

yes he still won't tell us the cost of a coal fired power station with full carbon capture and storage simply because he wants to believe that pollution is not a problem.

He also believes the cost of filling up your fool tank at the fool bowser is not a cost at all ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:49pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:42pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used. It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :( Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :( lunatic... it failed because it simply didnt work. wrong again f,.ckhead !! Solar funding round leaves Mildura in the dark Date     November 12, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-funding-round-leaves-mildura-in-the-dark-20121112-2978p.html

we went thru this at the time. the funding was withdrawn because the technology was found to be unreliable. IT DIDNT WORK properly. Nobody is going to invest in a project that wont work.

Nail,

Quote:

yes he still won't tell us the cost of a coal fired power station with full carbon capture and storage simply because he wants to believe that pollution is not a problem. He also believes the cost of filling up your fool tank at the fool bowser is not a cost at all

That's true Nail,
Longweekend is not the brightest candle on the cake.  ;D

Nail,

Quote:

Solar funding round leaves Mildura in the dark Date     November 12, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-funding-round-leaves-mildura-in-the-dark-20121112-2978p.html

Longloser

Quote:

we went thru this at the time. the funding was withdrawn because the technology was found to be unreliable. IT DIDNT WORK properly. Nobody is going to invest in a project that wont work.

That's not what the link says Longy.


It says


Quote:

A huge solar power farm intended for the north-western Victorian town of Mildura is in doubt after the EnergyAustralia-backed project again missed out on federal government funding.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:49pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:42pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used. It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :( Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :( lunatic... it failed because it simply didnt work. wrong again f,.ckhead !! Solar funding round leaves Mildura in the dark Date     November 12, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-funding-round-leaves-mildura-in-the-dark-20121112-2978p.html we went thru this at the time. the funding was withdrawn because the technology was found to be unreliable. IT DIDNT WORK properly. Nobody is going to invest in a project that wont work.

No those were your words that you were parroting from some other deadbeat that you knew which was backed up by no evidence at all other than hear say.

Somehow in your twisted thinking that you believe that your statements on this forum carry a lot of weight when in actual fact they should be considered as SPAM.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:43pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:35pm: Nail, Quote: It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all That's how f.cked up australians are Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination Hear hear Nail, Longweekend has no idea about renewable energy. These projects are expensive to set up. Without a carbon tax feeding into them very few businesses would be able to go to the bank with a viable business model. The fact is that if we rely on the Libbos we'll be burning stinking coal forever until our atmosphere resembles Beijing city & the planet is a hothouse - that's what Longweekend & his mate Tony want. which is my point dimwit. Without a taxpayer subsidy,  they are unviable. Longweekend - you're a half wit. What about the cost of pollution? How else will we reduce pollution?

bump

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:59pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:49pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:42pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:07pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:49pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:41pm: If Tony rescinds the carbon tax - where will all the money for renewable energy projects come from? the libbos will fund more never-ever clean coal projects using borrowed money :( Yes Nail, what ever happened to that solar project in Mildura? it failed because the technology was unreliable. Now gaynail will come in and blame libbos, chevron and GWB and Howard for the failure but the simple fact is that it simply didnt work well enough to be used. It failed like most high tech projects and inventions in Australia because money is siphoned or stolen away and used to inflate a property bubble for no future benefit at all :( That's how f.cked up australia is where investing in some 1920's old dump is much more important than high tech investments :( Australia is no Germany by any stretch of the imagination :( lunatic... it failed because it simply didnt work. wrong again f,.ckhead !! Solar funding round leaves Mildura in the dark Date     November 12, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-funding-round-leaves-mildura-in-the-dark-20121112-2978p.html we went thru this at the time. the funding was withdrawn because the technology was found to be unreliable. IT DIDNT WORK properly. Nobody is going to invest in a project that wont work. No those were your words that you were parroting from some other deadbeat that you knew which was backed up by no evidence at all other than hear say. Somehow in your twisted thinking that you believe that your statements on this forum carry a lot of weight when in actual fact they should be considered as SPAM.

wel liquidnails... it makes perfect sense, downt it? ANd if it were viable it wouldnt need govt funding. And there is the rub, isnt it? NO RE project ever gets going with govt slush money to get it running. they are intrinsically unviable.

Quote:

It is also complete uncaring to drive up the price of living with a tax.

Andrei, what do you think all taxes do? Most people do not equate GHG emissions with living. This tax is different to almost all other taxes in that it is designed to be avoided. Most people could easily reduce their consumption so that the costs were the same that they used to pay without any real impact on their standard of living. That's if they can be bothered.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Quote: It is also complete uncaring to drive up the price of living with a tax. Andrei, what do you think all taxes do? Most people do not equate GHG emissions with living. This tax is different to almost all other taxes in that it is designed to be avoided. Most people could easily reduce their consumption so that the costs were the same that they used to pay without any real impact on their standard of living. That's if they can be bothered.

its not designed to be avoided AT ALL!!!  what crap. it is an impost on a small number of businesses that they pass on to us. Does the carbon tax increase in the price of electricity allow you to 'avoid' this tax? no, it does not. reducing your concsumption of electricty is not 'avoiding' the tax as you are still in essence paying it.

what a silly statement.

Quote:

its not designed to be avoided AT ALL!!!  what crap.

Yes it is GM. The evidence from the opening post proves it is working too.


Quote:

it is an impost on a small number of businesses that they pass on to us. Does the carbon tax increase in the price of electricity allow you to 'avoid' this tax? no, it does not. reducing your concsumption of electricty is not 'avoiding' the tax as you are still in essence paying it.

Not if you get your electricity from renewables. The intention of the tax is that you avoid paying it and it is designed that way. Most other taxes are deliberately designed the other way, so they are as difficult as possible to avoid. I realise these are some subtle concepts, perhaps too subtle for some, but the fact that people pay the tax does not disprove this.

Luckily it has been proven that co2 does not increase temperature so all these kooky reduction schemes are moot anyway, crazy carbon abatement schemes or not, nothing will change.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Luckily it has been proven that co2 does not increase temperature so all these kooky reduction schemes are moot anyway, crazy carbon abatement schemes or not, nothing will change.

This is something I'd love to see. Would that be mathematical proof or legal proof?

- or perhaps in the case of Monckton, 100 degrees proof? (straight malt of course)

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:26pm:

Quote: its not designed to be avoided AT ALL!!!  what crap. Yes it is GM. The evidence from the opening post proves it is working too. [quote]it is an impost on a small number of businesses that they pass on to us. Does the carbon tax increase in the price of electricity allow you to 'avoid' this tax? no, it does not. reducing your concsumption of electricty is not 'avoiding' the tax as you are still in essence paying it.

Not if you get your electricity from renewables. The intention of the tax is that you avoid paying it and it is designed that way. Most other taxes are deliberately designed the other way, so they are as difficult as possible to avoid. I realise these are some subtle concepts, perhaps too subtle for some, but the fact that people pay the tax does not disprove this.[/quote]

because we have a choice to get out power from renewables? Do you get to tick the box on your power bill to pay triple so that it is all 'renewable'? what nonsense. you get what5 comes down the wire just like everyone else. You are being ridiculous. explain to me exactly how I avoid paying the carbon tax on electricity.

I used to think you could make a half-reasonable argument on most topics but of late you have been illogical and absurd. this is no different.

Quote:

because we have a choice to get out power from renewables?

Because you have many choices GM. That was the best example because it completely avoided the tax.


Quote:

explain to me exactly how I avoid paying the carbon tax on electricity.

Whatever way you want. I would start with turning the lights off when you are not using them. You are only limited by your imagination. That is the beauty of the carbon tax. It takes advantage of the cleverness of people like you.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 7:25pm:

Quote: because we have a choice to get out power from renewables? Because you have many choices GM. That was the best example because it completely avoided the tax. [quote]explain to me exactly how I avoid paying the carbon tax on electricity.

Whatever way you want. I would start with turning the lights off when you are not using them. You are only limited by your imagination. That is the beauty of the carbon tax. It takes advantage of the cleverness of people like you.[/quote]

wow that is so original... save carbon tax by using less electricity. because we never had that option BEFORE the carbon tax? because when we used less electricty before then emissions stayed the same??? what ARE you drinking to come up with this nonsense?

Correct. It is kind of hard to save on a tax that does not exist. The point GM, is that the financial incentive now matches the economic reality. Previously it did not.

Does the carbon tax work?

Sure it works ...companies are spending money to reduce pollution ... it's working. Read somewhere a while back that a suger mill in Qld was updating its production processes at a cost of $400 million so as to reduce emissions ...

would this mill have spent $400 million if it didn't have to? Doubt it .... if there was no tax they would still be pumping crap into the atmosphere.

Australia's emissions are 0.1% of global total.

If Australia actually reduced their emission output to 0 - it would make no difference to climate change whatsoever.

That's the reality.

Australia is a merely a piss in the bucket compared to this country, India and China.

So the carbon tax is one big whatever.

Quote:

Australia's emissions are 0.1% of global total.

And our population is even less than that. So what is your point? That because we can draw a small circle around ourselves we should not have to do our part? Honestly, this is one of the most idiotic arguments I have seen.


Quote:

If Australia actually reduced their emission output to 0 - it would make no difference to climate change whatsoever. That's the reality.

No it isn't. It is a rejection of the geopolitical reality that other countries with lower per capita emissions are looking to the worst polluters, like Australia, to lead.

From what I've seen If we are setting example no ones watching.

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:54am:

From what I've seen If we are setting example no ones watching.

Who are you and what have you seen, big shot??  :-* :-*

Perhaps he has seen an email from the Liberal party. There are plenty of foreign countries looking at how to reduce emissions. Being one of the few examples of a carbon tax, they will be looking very closely at us.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Perhaps he has seen an email from the Liberal party. There are plenty of foreign countries looking at how to reduce emissions. Being one of the few examples of a carbon tax, they will be looking very closely at us.

I think he's seen the insides of his mates crack pipe when he's gone to do wee wees!

don't heaps of countries have carbon taxes? why do we talk about how we're pioneers when heaps of european countries have done the same thing decades before us? or are their taxes different?

JC Denton wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

don't heaps of countries have carbon taxes? why do we talk about how we're pioneers when heaps of european countries have done the same thing decades before us? or are their taxes different?

INNOCENT BYSTANDER WILL BE ONLY TOO HAPPY TO TACKLE THAT ONE I'M SURE!

JC, most have gone down the path of cap and trade.

what makes cap and trade less effective than direct taxes on carbon?

JC Denton wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

what makes cap and trade less effective than direct taxes on carbon?

I'M NOT SURE IT IS LESS EFFECTIVE!

JC Denton wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

what makes cap and trade less effective than direct taxes on carbon?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html#taxes-vs-trading

Do you agree JC?