What is this thing called carbon tax?

[crash n bern]

Throughout history every century has had it's "The sky is falling" syndrome.  Governments control the people with fear of some sort.

Just like telling your kids to eat their vegies or the boogy man will get them.

Their are only two things on this earth that you can believe. One is that you will die. The second is you will pay more taxes before you die.

[Nathan S]

I'm 100% with you there Fossil.
The polarisation of "green" vs hunters/dirt bikers/4WDers/etc is actually really bloody stupid - without exception, the people I know who spend time shooting/riding/4WDing in the bush are there because they love being in the bush, and they're very sensible about how they use and look after the bush.

It actually frustrates me that so many of us let the greenies paint us as environmental rapists... Even the organised pro-access groups seem to forget that we want to use the bush because it is the bush, while the greenies lump us in with the activities that do the real damage like clear felling and property development.
Before the 09 Rally Oz, a lot of the north coast locals were very wound up - most of them had lumped the rally in with the other corporate interests that usually end up damaging the environment. Once it was pointed out that the rally needed the forests, and they the rally was actually a fairly strong corporate backed ally, the vast majority of the locals realised that the rally was actually a positive for the local environment (the NIMBYs still won in the end - the rally got moved).

Similarly, the NIMBY movement has hitched itself onto the green movement... "Saving the environment" has become a powerful tool for the wankers who can't stand the idea of someone else having fun, but actually has nothing to do with saving the environment.

The whole debate is completely retarded because there are so many basic assumptions that are false.


--------------------

I thought that the volcano CO2 vs human CO2 thing had been debunked.

[mx250]

Do 4wd'ers, trail riders, mountain bikers, Rally drivers, et al, really love the bush or do they love the challenges that the obstacles and isolation of the Bush given them. Just because you use the Bush doesn't mean you love the Bush.

The converse is also true. Just because you use the Bush (and do limited damage to the bush) doesn't mean you disrespect the Bush.

How many of the Greenies actually love the Bush and how many actually love the argument - they love having a 'moral' cause, doing moral good. They love having a purpose to life and being morally superior to others when they are materially poorer. (fork, I think I just described Bob Brown to a tee - an ugly faggot with a 'look down the nose' superior attitude. ).

Oopps, the converse is also true. How many materially 'well off' think they have a God given right to do as they see fit.

How much of the polarisation, extreme and adversary positioning is conscious leadership by the Greenie leadership? Do they really want a solution or do they want a cause?

"........while the greenies lump us in with the activities that do the real damage like clear felling and property development." It's worst than that - they see the 20 litres you burn to go trail riding as an evil but don't see the 30,000 litre of kero they burn in the stratosphere on the way to the Himalayas for an Environmentally Correct holiday in the same light.

And all of the above does relate to the topic because all of the above is 'in play' with the carbon issue. There's more emotion than objectivity and it serves some players to whip it up the emotions rather work towards a solution. (fork, I think I just described Bob Brown to a tee - again )

[Marc.com]

The whole debate is completely retarded because there are so many basic assumptions that are false.

So whatever happened to the old hole in the Ozone layer ..... what grates me about Green Politics is it is presented as something noble,,,,, where it is simply a cynical power grab by a minority that is facilitated by the current voting system.

The carbon tax would be more truthfully labeled as the, 'runaway inflation tax', 'double dip recession' tax or maybe the 'nastiest property bubble' tax. Globalization has had the nasty side effect of the failure of one economy being able to take the whole global economy out of the game, in this case it is Greece, not long ago it was Korea. So giving a new tax 'respectability' by saving the planet is just smoke and mirrors to sucker the gullible into not seeing the real very urgent need for additional taxation..

The global response the Lehman set the stage for a savage double dip recessionary cycle, end of the EU are all completely predictable outcomes, we do not really need the Greens to limit our consumption, it is highly likely that the commercial banks creating wealth from debt have achieved that for us.

[Graeme M]

Yes Nathan, the volcano thing has been debunked, well... as long as you believe the science. Terrestrial volcanic output of CO2 is a fraction of human output in raw tonnage terms. There is some uncertainty surrounding submarine volcanoes though, as there are many many more of them. Even so it is accepted that human CO2 emissions still far exceed volcanic output.

That is half the issue, the amount of misinformation out there, on both sides. The reason I posed the question of the tax is that I have a fair idea of how AGW is supposed to work, but I have no idea of whether a CO2 tax is a useful strategy. I wondered if anyone else here did. I think most of us are pretty cynical though and don't believe that it will help. I go further than that - I don't think AGW is as urgent an issue as it is made out, and I think Australia would do better to take a more cautious approach than jump on the bandwagon with what appears to be a carbon tax strategy that hasn't been well defined.

I also think that the more radical green agenda has been allowed to gain an upper hand in the debate worldwide, and THAT is a real worry...

[Mike52]

but the question at the moment is,  are they just in it for the money, the funding and the research projects? 

I have a honest enviromental research scientist friend and you don,t know how close to the mark that statement is Gippslander.

Question :-
How much energy and polution are involved in the making of a solar panel?
Include the mines [Alumina/silica/copper and don,t forget the enviromental damage there] ,transport , production [ include the power station and refinery polution ] transport again , fuel ,labour and so on.

This is a recently new way of thinking and shows up some problems not mentioned by the Experts.

When we talk about the returns on a solar panel no one ever factors the above into the figures because if they did you,d have to admit that this battle is more difficult than first thought.

[Lozza]

The issue is similar to cigrette smoking, if you continue to smoke you are seriously damaging not only your health but anyone who is forced to breathe your second hand smoke.If you think smoking is good for you or causes no harm or you don't believe the scientific studies/mumbo jumbo your in denial.
What factor has caused smoking take up rates to decline in recent years? Putting the price up has been extremely effective, it is also cheaper to kick the habit than it is to continue to smoke.
It would be silly to suggest that a goverment whacked the price of smokes up as a money grab, after all as with a carbon tax, if you don't smoke or pollute you don't pay the tax. If you do pay the tax you will find a way of reducing carbon emmissions to minimise the tax paid.
Putting a price on carbon also allows a trading scheme, where some clever dick will work out how to make a carbon sink and sell the credits they create.
Non carbon based economies will be a bit like businesses that buried their heads in the sand about the 'internet', a few years down the track they have been left behind.

[Graeme M]

I'm speaking from ignorance I know, but the big difference between a cigarette tax and the CO2 tax seems to me that the former affects one industry and only those people who choose to smoke, the latter affects most production and most energy consumption. From what I've read, there are precious few renewable energy sources out there that are likely to fill the gap in baseload for quite some time to come.

On a related topic, wind farms - if those things were related to fossil fuels the greens would be all over them. The costs, the land used, the roads etc needed for access, the sheer eyesore of them - versus the somewhat dubious returns. Someone has to be making a killing out of that!

[vmx42]

I lived for 20 years using no electricity.

Well done!!    But the true magic is how you post to OzVMX without it. Damn clever!!  

So whatever happened to the old hole in the Ozone layer…

The huge reduction in the use and output of chloroflourocarbons did exactly what it was supposed to do.

[Mike52]

The issue is similar to cigarette smoking, if you continue to smoke you are seriously damaging not only your health but anyone who is forced to breathe your second hand smoke.

Just a little side track Lozza.
Research in Sweden suggests that smokers actually SAVE a country money.
The research shows that people over a certain age cost more and more in health care whereas a smoker is dead well before this age.
This is not a joke this is real research and makes sense when you think about it.
From an economic point of view you should reach retirement then die as soon as you can to save your country money.

I lived for 20 years using no electricity.

Well done!!    But the true magic is how you post to OzVMX without it. Damn clever!!  

Ah , never said I didn,t use electricity NOW VMX.
I had a look around me and discovered that I was alone so said to myself " what,s the point ".
Now I fit in with everyone else.

[Nathan S]

Imagine the govt said "In ten years time, it will be illegal to run a coal or gas power station" - and actually had the skill/resolve to stick with it.

We'd hear a ton of bleating about how it would be the end of the world, but as soon as the companies worked out that they couldn't get out of it, it would suddenly represent a stack of opportunity - the employment and investment boom in the scramble to construct solar/wind/whatever powered powerstations would make the mining industry look weak.
Obviously, it would have its bad points, just as the mining industry does, but it sure wouldn't be all bad (just as the mining industry isn't).

A carbon tax is obviously a far less dramatic move, but I think we're simply at the whinging stage. If/when we get past the whinging, we'll see a stack of opportunity opening up.

More generally, I find it perversely amusing that the Liberals are getting political mileage from the "skyrocketing electricity prices" that have resulted from the market being left to its own devices.

[Rossvickicampbell]

have jumped from the first page to here so if I have missed already seeing this sorry.    Probably wouldn't mind a carbon tax if like what taxes are supposed to be it went to carbon reduction - however it is another means for the government to tax (lets say) industry, have the costs passed onto Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs and then pass some of it back as tax cuts - therefore trying to look good.  Where is the plan for using the tax to reduce emissions and what happens to the remained that doesn't get used for tax cuts?  And by increasing costs to producers it won't necessarily make them reduce their footprint?  A higher cost to them gives them more to claim back anyway?

Jeff - where are you??     I have been looking forward to a discussion like this.

[Graeme M]

Nathan, while there might indeed be a 'scramble' to fund and develop alternative energy options, how confident are you that those exist in as useful a form as fossil fuel sources? The benefit of coal fired power is that it has a high energy yield for the production volume/cost. What renewable sources can step into the breach any time soon? How long would it take to develop solar/wind sources that would provide the baseload requirement for Australian domestic and commercial demand, WITHOUT reducing consumption (read wind back economy/lifestyle)?

I am not arguing for fossil fuel energy sources, rather I am suggesting that there are some fundamental practical issues confronting us. Already some leading environmental players in Europe are arguing that the only form of 'clean' energy (in a CO2 sense) available that can actually offer comparable energy generation is nuclear.

This is an interesting article on the matter: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/the-base-load-misconception-part-1/

[Nathan S]

If renewables were cheaper than non-renewables, then the discussion would be irrelevant.
The point is that we need to start investing in renewable energy production before we hit crisis point - even if it means paying more.

Its inevitable that we will pay considerably more for energy in the fairly near future. Moving now will minimise the both the increase and the rate of increase - both of which will cost us a lot less (economically and socially) in the long run.

[vmx42]

Jeff - where are you??     I have been looking forward to a discussion like this.

Hey Rosco,
Good to know you are thinking of me.  

To be honest I really don't know what to say about this issue. I firmly believe that we shouldn't shit in our own nest [or planet in this case].

I also know that as a society we have nothing to fear from improving technology and trying to eliminate pollution. Pollution reduction and the control of chemical waste has been sought by governments and imposed on business for many, many decades. For example, when I was a kid the Parramatta river was a toxic waste dump - legislation was brought in to make the polluters clean up their waste - it cost money, but it didn't have a dramatic impact on the public purse strings. Now the river is clean and I don't know anybody who would allow companies to go back to the bad old days - what was OK then is not OK now.

I tend to think that CO2 in the same way. Sure it is much bigger issue, but it is not beyond our capabilities in a perfect world. And that's where I have problems in what to say from here on in - it is not a perfect world - too many self interested parties, telling half truths and down right lies.

I don't subscribe to the theory of the wholesale corruption of the scientific community as I know that they are not organised well enough to pull off something of this nature - but the politicians, well that is another kettle of fish entirely. I don't believe that there is any kind of worldwide political conspiracy, pollies are too dumb, self serving and short sighted for that - but I can see how individual governments across the globe can see it as a way of exerting power and influence over their constituents for short term political advantage.

If I had to jump one way or the other - I wouldn't be standing up and saying I have all the facts [I don't - and neither does anybody else], nor would I be listening to the Shock Jocks, the self serving politicians or extremists on either side of the arguement - instead I would be using my gut instinct that for the sake of my kids and their kids that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I suppose that means that I do support action on Climate Change.

I don't have irrefutable facts to back up my position, nor I am going to go around wasting my time, yelling and screaming, trying to convince others that I am right. But if in the future if I am proven to be wrong then my kids and theirs kids can have a good old laugh at my expense. But if I am right, then they will thank me and others like me.

But if in the future Climate Change is proven to a be real and significant problem for the planet and the human race then I couldn't look my kids in the eye if I had done nothing and allowed my own selfish motives to override what is probably the right thing to do.

So there you have it Rosco a couple of hundred words to explain why I don't know what to say on this matter. And that in itself makes no sense either.

We should discuss it over a beer, in a pub, where all good discussions should be had.
VMX42