11 Aug 11
Here in Australia , our great ranga leader in julia gillard thinks it a great idea to impose another tax on us in the form of a carbon tax. Do other countries have a similar tax imposed on them and do you really think if australia slowed their carbon output it would really have an effect on the global emissions , after all we only produce less than 2% of the global emissions .
11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by boarmanIn the US, there's a gas guzzler tax, but the cap and trade bill seems to be on ice for the moment.
Here in Australia , our great ranga leader in julia gillard thinks it a great idea to impose another tax on us in the form of a carbon tax. Do other countries have a similar tax imposed on them and do you really think if australia slowed their carbon output it would really have an effect on the global emissions , after all we only produce less than 2% of the global emissions .
Obviously, Australia in a vacuum wouldn't matter much, but precedents are important so that other countries can follow suit.
Carbon taxes can work. Economic incentives always have the potential to work. Personally, I'd rather see more of an emphasis on encouragement of development of alternative sources of energy rather than just encouraging a decrease in consumption. Decreasing consumption is a losing battle, especially because China and India are only going to increase consumption and they're by far the world's two biggest populations.
Development of alternative sources of energy is the only viable long term solution to the CO2 emissions problem.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by boarmanWorld population approx 6,900,000,000
Here in Australia , our great ranga leader in julia gillard thinks it a great idea to impose another tax on us in the form of a carbon tax. Do other countries have a similar tax imposed on them and do you really think if australia slowed their carbon output it would really have an effect on the global emissions , after all we only produce less than 2% of the global emissions .
Australia population approx 23,000,000
As such Australia has approximately 0.33% of the world population but it is creating, by your own figures, around 2% of global emissions.
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by boarmanA complete rort which will cost thousands of jobs and move productive people onto the unproductive guvamint beneficiary list and not one prediction on what it will do to the climate. On top of Julias (Q:How do you know when a polly is lying A: Their lips are moving) promise that their would be no carbon tax. The minute it was mentioned they took a dive, and since then they've been promising (Oh god, when will people learn) rebates to every man and his dog, so reducing the effectiveness of said tax from .0000000000001% to .00000000000005%, and had a big multimillion dollar spend up on a propaganda campaign. i.e. using tax money to tell people how great it is to be taxed.
Here in Australia , our great ranga leader in julia gillard thinks it a great idea to impose another tax on us in the form of a carbon tax. Do other countries have a similar tax imposed on them and do you really think if australia slowed their carbon output it would really have an effect on the global emissions , after all we only produce less than 2% of the global emissions .
All the opposition has to do is get principled (Oh god when will people learn) and promise (You're right, there is no hope) to throw the whole thing out and he'll get his hands on the reins of power.
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76Heaven forbid that China and India should out-consume us. That would be unfathomable.
In the US, there's a gas guzzler tax, but the cap and trade bill seems to be on ice for the moment.
Obviously, Australia in a vacuum wouldn't matter much, but precedents are important so that other countries can follow suit.
Carbon taxes can work. Economic incentives always have the potential to work. Personally, I'd rather see more of an emphasis on enco ...[text shortened]... ative sources of energy is the only viable long term solution to the CO2 emissions problem.
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by telerionCap and trade is a carbon tax. They are the same thing.
Yep. Carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Either one makes sense.
Regulations to make electrical devices more efficient make more sense. Cap and trade is the most idiotic idea I have ever heard of. What is the plan with automobiles, monitor every single automobile's emissions? Stupid!!!!
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainFirst, no they are not. For the last time, go educate yourself. In theory they have the same ultimate effect, but they are decidedly different policies. God, if you are too lazy to look at an economics text, then for Chrissakes try wikipedia.
Cap and trade is a carbon tax. They are the same thing.
Regulations to make electrical devices more efficient make more sense. Cap and trade is the most idiotic idea I have ever heard of. What is the plan with automobiles, monitor every single automobile's emissions? Stupid!!!!
The rest of your post is nonsense. You clearly don't know what either one of these is.
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by telerionFine, they are both incredibly stupid.
First, no they are not. For the last time, go educate yourself. In theory they have the same ultimate effect, but they are decidedly different policies. God, if you are too lazy to look at an economics text, then for Chrissakes try wikipedia.
The rest of your post is nonsense. You clearly don't know what either one of these is.
Carbon taxes are essentially a war on coal that will favor natural gas and the fracking that threatens to contaminate the water table. I suppose the oil companies would love this since it is anti-competitive with our huge coal reserves being made more expensive.
Emissions trading (you would know that is what it is called if you were not so lazy to try wikipedia yourself) is too expensive to monitor with any degree of accuracy. Again, are you going to monitor every automobile that is on the road?
And yes, they have the same effect. They both tax carbon. Duh!
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal Brainfatuous (def.) - foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.
Fine, they are both incredibly stupid.
Carbon taxes are essentially a war on coal that will favor natural gas and the fracking that threatens to contaminate the water table. I suppose the oil companies would love this since it is anti-competitive with our huge coal reserves being made more expensive.
Emissions trading (you would know that is what i ...[text shortened]... utomobile that is on the road?
And yes, they have the same effect. They both tax carbon. Duh!
(emphasis added)
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by telerionThere are better options than carbon taxes.
fatuous (def.) - foolish or inane, [b]especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.
(emphasis added)[/b]
Over half of electricity in this country is generated by coal burning plants. Since coal is heavy in carbon all you have to do is regulate electricity consuming devices to be more efficient. For example, DVD players consume 40% of the electricity (when the power button is off) of that DVD player when the power is on.
Strict efficiency standards for these electricity consuming devices would be very effective at reducing carbon emissions without a stupid carbon tax. The consumer saves money on the electric bill and coal burning is reduced. Win win.
Carbon taxes are not necessary!
I doubt they would even be very effective. Wealthy people will gladly pay the carbon tax because they can afford it. Only poor people will change their habits. Even though gasoline is expensive rich people still drive their Hummers and SUVs don't they? Face it, we would just be paying another lousy tax with little benefit.
13 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou could mandate that electrical devices be more efficient. Assuming that there are easy technological fixes that will make them sufficiently more efficient, it would still likely cause the price to rise so it's not going to be a free lunch.
There are better options than carbon taxes.
Over half of electricity in this country is generated by coal burning plants. Since coal is heavy in carbon all you have to do is regulate electricity consuming devices to be more efficient. For example, DVD players consume 40% of the electricity (when the power button is off) of that DVD player when the pow ...[text shortened]... rs and SUVs don't they? Face it, we would just be paying another lousy tax with little benefit.
Another issue with just making things more efficient is that it just reduces the private marginal cost of fuel consumption which can actually cause people to consume more. You are assuming that they do the same amount of the activity (which would use less fuel).
It's okay that the rich will not adjust as much. They will pay the additional cost of driving Hummers (more fair since they're the ones consuming more fuel). Plus, there aren't very many of them relative to the rest of us. So their high consumption is far more than offset by the rest of us reducing.
Finally, the distributional effects of cap and trade or carbon taxation are far from clear, since the revenues can be redistributed in many ways (some proposals have built in credits to reduce the burden for the poor).