lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:33pm:


Carbon tax benefits the rich, when the tax is used it makes the product more expensive thus pushing the poor out from using the resource and the rich still have access to the product. The only person who loses with carbon tax is the poor. Government benefit from the tax, rich still access the product and the poor miss out.

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:33pm:


Because money talks, and BS walks. If you put a price on something was was previously free, people will use it less. There are literally millions of decisions we make that affect our GHG emissions. But without a price on those emissions, we often do not even know which is the less carbon intensive option.

Quote:


It won't happen until the majority support it. The coalition got away with one scare campaign on it, treating voters like morons. It worked, unfortunately. But maybe not the second time.

Leroy wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 7:39pm:


A carbon tax is one of a small number of taxes that the government wants you to avoid paying. The rich will no doubt pay it. The poor are more likely to find ways to avoid it. This is not a bad thing. Keep in mind, the "product" here is greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody actually needs them. Nobody in their right mind even wants them. You cannot eat or drink CO emissions. You cannot sleep on them or wrap yourself in them. You cannot even see them.

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:07pm:


My reference to the product is whatever is made using processes that create CO2.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 13^th, 2024 at 10:10pm:


The difference between coal and nuclear is that coal does produce harmful emissions. Nuclear doesn’t - it uses a nuclear reaction to create heat that generates steam. Once nuclear fuel is spent, the nuclear waste is stored. It does not produce emissions and Australia has huge reserves of uranium to draw upon.

I get it, I got it the first time it was suggested.
It’s simply a carrot in front of a donkey.

I believe it would need a second term majority labor government and a leadership of steal to ever be put on the radar again.

Yes there would be increased cost to both customers and business.
That’s the whole point of it.
The market would weed out the heavy pollution generators as customers would simply vote with their wallets to do business with the cheaper business not generating as much pollution.

At the mention of a new tax everyone screams unfair.

However it’s you and I and our children , children looking at paying the trillions of dollars it’s going too cost for either new power grid that becomes developed.

The carbon tax was/ is the best solution, yes it had a scare campaign run successfully against it but it was so poorly presented it could never gain traction ( a little like Albo voice).

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2024 at 11:09am:


I agree....A carbon tax or ETS provides incentive for the free market to reduce emissions at the lowest cost....It could actually make Nuclear more economically feasible and help fund Nuclear through the private sector....Which was why the ETS was introduced and then rejected by Tony Abbott to support fossil fuel!!!

Quote:


There are plenty of ways Lee. Do you actually want me to answer your stupid questions for you, or are they rhetorical?

Remember, you cannot eat electricity either. Or sleep on it. Even though it is the simplest and most direct link you can think of between what people want and GHG emissions, there are still several opaque layers between what people actually want and the emissions. For most of what people want, there are many more complex and opaque layers, all of which offer opportunities for individuals, but not governments, to make decisions that reduce GHG emissions. That is why a carbon tax is such a powerful and cheap way to reduce emissions, and why it is universally endorsed as such by economists.