Which bit answers my questions?
1. Can you tell me by how much the carbon tax will change/mitigate climate?
The article refers to a study that has researched the impact of an ETS from an
economic perspective, based on the 10 US NE States that form something called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (whatever that is). In the article at least, there is no reference to your question.
Your question is of course loaded because everyone knows that if Australia cuts its emissions, and nobody else did, there would be negligible impact on the environment. Of course Australia
isn't creating policies re pricing carbon alone, but that seems to be ignored in your question.
How it will save industry and create jobs?
How it secure our financial future?
Evaluations of several energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the RGGI participating states indicate that these programs provide $3-$4 in savings for every dollar invested. When macroeconomic benefits are considered, the benefits are even greater."
...
"A 2010 analysis by Environment Northeast estimates that energy efficiency programs funded with CO2 allowance proceeds through December 2010 are projected to create nearly 18,000 job years – that is, the equivalent of 18,000 full-time jobs that last one year. Employment benefits result from state program investments and from the reinvestment of consumer energy bill savings in the wider economy. While there has not yet been a similar analysis of RGGI-funded renewable energy programs, data from the Renewable Energy Policy Project shows every $1 million invested in renewable energy systems creates about six full-time manufacturing jobs, as well as additional jobs in construction and facility maintenance."
"At the household and business level, energy efficiency investments enhance consumers’ control over their energy use, typically reducing energy bills by 15 to 30 percent."
Please note I have not had the time to read the report, just the article. I therefore do not have an opinion on the findings at this stage. I merely provided it because it seemed like a reasonable starting point for real-world examinations of carbon pricing mechanisms.
Neither did yours interest me.
OK, but this began with an assertion
you made.
You did however feel compelled to interject stentoriously on a very minor (and still unproven) point.
The partisan hatchet-job that constitutes your dialogue in here leaves one wanting to interject from time to time. I do apologise if you feel it's unfair (and to be honest I'd love to find out what I might disagree on re
other users here, but it's always your posts that get everyone's attention apparently!).
As for the point, I feel I have done enough to prove something that is (as far as I know) common knowledge.
For the most part, I agree with you there.
For the record I see your point. I would also happily admit to being wrong (my ego isn't that big and I have proven it many times here). I just don't see it as compelling enough to change my language from "change his mind" to something else.
Fair enough.
The fact is he did change his mind. About what? Believing in a GST or implementing one. It seems to me now that we are at cross purposes; you are arguing the former (and you may well be right - it has great merit), me the latter (and I believe I am right). Ultimately it is a pointless pedantic argument.
OK, but I will have to point out that Howard always favoured a consumption tax
and was always going to implement one (or at least try to). If I were you the fact that it was a policy he took to the electorate, unlike Gillard, is a much stronger line of argument.
PS Go Hawks.
