Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[Hallo Alfie]

Run away?

Yep

The point that almost everybody gets is that this carbon price will encourage industries to move to less polluting technologies.

Evidence of "almost everybody" please.
The provide evidence as to how it will encourage industry to less polluting technology and then
Which technologies?

I will be interested too in your response to Beerina

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If carbon dioxide is taxed, people will consciously try to avoid using it when they don't have to, and will use less of it where possible when they do have to.

Except that we don't have to reduce our consumption because we (the tax payers, families etc) are compensated for the additional costs the tax imposes.

Realistically it's not going to have a huge effect,

Really?
Just how will our little bit help and by how much?

I don't know what your prime minister has claimed in terms of how fast climate change will happen and how much this will help avoid it, but she is right if she claims that this will reduce the effect of climate change and that climate change has the potential to cause serious problems if not addresses.

Our Prime Minister is a world famous liar. Why should we believe her and her alarmist claims now?

But I would really like the questions posed above in direct response to her claims answered, can you help?

 

[lionking]

Our Prime Minister is a world famous liar. Why should we believe her?

But I would really like the questions posed above in direct response to her claims answered, can you help?

Classic. You expose your (mysogenist?) hatred of our PM and you then berate someone for making reference to her. Textbook hypocrisy.

Anyway, we can look forward to nearly 18 months of the Gillard government impementing an anti-pollution policy. While Abbott sits on the sidelines appealing to Alan Jones and his pathetic supporters.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Still running, huh?

 

[stokes234]

Except that we don't have to reduce our consumption because we (the tax payers, families etc) are compensated for the additional costs the tax imposes.

Could you elaborate on that?

Really?
Just how will our little bit help and by how much?

I don't know. I also don't know how much money I save when I turn off the light as I leave a room, or when I have a 5 minute shower instead of a 10 minute shower, or when I fill up a bowl in the sink for washing up instead of running the tap the whole time. But I do it, because I know it helps.

Our Prime Minister is a world famous liar. Why should we believe her and her alarmist claims now?

I can't really help you with that. I can, however, point you towards the fact that the vast majority of the worlds relevant scientists believe that we are very likely to be causing global warming.

But I would really like the questions posed above in direct response to her claims answered, can you help?

No. Her individual claims may be wrong, I don't know. But the overriding point is correct, and as such the carbon tax is a good idea.

 

[Legend]

Alfie, why is the evidence a one way street? Your threads start with italicised excerpts from news stories and half-baked commentary with the intent of manufacturing tired political points without any substance. Your opinions, which are always the biggest in any discussion on Australian politics, need evidence and conviction to be taken seriously.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Could you elaborate on that?

Industry is taxed, the tax is collected and then passed on to consumers. Why would we use less?

I don't know. I also don't know how much money I save when I turn off the light as I leave a room, or when I have a 5 minute shower instead of a 10 minute shower, or when I fill up a bowl in the sink for washing up instead of running the tap the whole time. But I do it, because I know it helps.

How much will the tax help the climate?

I can't really help you with that. I can, however, point you towards the fact that the vast majority of the worlds relevant scientists believe that we are very likely to be causing global warming.

So how does the tax help?

No. Her individual claims may be wrong, I don't know. But the overriding point is correct, and as such the carbon tax is a good idea.

I don't wish to sound rude to you, but how can you claim it is a "good idea" when you clearly don't understand the mechanics - as in the $ being given back?

 

[lionking]

So you have nothing Alfie but bitterness and hatred of Gillard. We already know that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie, why is the evidence a one way street? Your threads start with italicised excerpts from news stories and half-baked commentary with the intent of manufacturing tired political points without any substance. Your opinions, which are always the biggest in any discussion on Australian politics, need evidence and conviction to be taken seriously.

This is a thread on Australia's (useless) carbon dioxide tax, not Australia's AA Alfie. If you wish to start a thread on me I will probably assist with contributions - please pm me when you get it up and running.

 

[stokes234]

Industry is taxed, the tax is collected and then passed on to consumers. Why would we use less?

You wouldn't. You'd use the same. The industries would use less in bringing you the goods and services that you use, though.

How much will the tax help the climate?

Roughly fourteen help-o-glots.

So how does the tax help?

It encourages (I just looked it up) the top 300 firms to produce less carbon dioxide.

I don't wish to sound rude to you, but how can you claim it is a "good idea" when you clearly don't understand the mechanics - as in the $ being given back?

It's a fairly simple concept. Taxing emissions encourages people to produce fewer emissions. This is what I support. I don't know who is getting the money back or how, but i've already explained how the tax can help, and am at a bit of a loss as to where you're disagreeing with me now.

 

[Francesca R]

We're not calling it a tax. it's a carbon price - Julia

It will all come out in the wash once a market price takes over.

A carbon price (AKA cap and trade or emissions trading scheme) isn't really a market price any more than a tax is, since the government enforces scarcity of emission permits. Arguably an ETS just introduces unhelpful noise in the cost of carbon emission which makes no contribution to the purpose of the price which is to discourage emissions. Europe's ETS has been discredited by the permit price dropping very low, and the apparent political difficulty of addressing that by restricting permits further.

A fixed carbon tax is a better policy lever IMO. Although, not if its political sustainability is wounded from day one, as Australia's seems to be.

 

[Francesca R]

This is a thread on Australia's (useless) carbon dioxide tax

It's usefulness (IE its objective) is to discourage emission of CO2. At AUD23/tonne, even only on the most profitable companies, it will be more effective than the EUETS.

If you don't want to discourage carbon burning then it's useless, but then you simply disagree with the objective, not whether it is served.

 

[Francesca R]

Industry is taxed, the tax is collected and then passed on to consumers. Why would we use less?

You wouldn't. You'd use the same.

No you wouldn't. At least, no you shouldn't. The price of more emission-friendly products should be differentially lower after the tax compared to before, which should change someone's relative demand for them compared to unfriendly ones.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You wouldn't. You'd use the same. The industries would use less in bringing you the goods and services that you use, though.

No, they will pass on the costs to the consumers. That's why we get compensated.

Roughly fourteen help-o-glots.

Exactly - no-one knows.

It encourages (I just looked it up) the top 300 firms to produce less carbon dioxide.

Who pass their costs on. How are they encouraged?

It's a fairly simple concept. Taxing emissions encourages people to produce fewer emissions.

Not of they simply recoup their costs elsewhere.

 

[Francesca R]

No, they will pass on the costs to the consumers. That's why we get compensated.

Which does not alter the outcome that the incentive to buy and produce less emissions-unfriendly stuff increases.

Who pass their costs on. How are they encouraged?

By the ability of less carbon-unfriendly production (not subject to the tax) to price itself relatively cheaper.

Not of they simply recoup their costs elsewhere.

Yeah you can't just recoup a cost if someone else is selling a substitute without a cost-recouping load in the price.

Rather elementary theory. Unproven how well it works in practice, but you seem not to know how it could work.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's usefulness (IE its objective) is to discourage emission of CO2. At AUD23/tonne, even only on the most profitable companies, it will be more effective than the EUETS.

If you don't want to discourage carbon burning then it's useless, but then you simply disagree with the objective, not whether it is served.

I was simply pointing out that this thread was not about me, but about the tax. It seems my personal trolls can't understand the difference.

 

[lionking]

I was simply pointing out that this thread was not about me, but about the tax. It seems my personal trolls can't understand the difference.

So address the arguments put, not the (imaginary) arguments about you. You can't counter the logic of a tax on pollution.

 

[stokes234]

No, they will pass on the costs to the consumers. That's why we get compensated.

Businesses that switch to more efficient business practices rather than raising their prices will then gain an advantage in the marketplace, encouraging less use of CO2 by businesses.

Exactly - no-one knows.

So? We know it helps. Why do you need to know exactly how much it helps? Do you need to know exactly how much money you're saving in order to convince you to switch off the light when you leave the room?

Who pass their costs on. How are they encouraged?

Not of they simply recoup their costs elsewhere.

Already addressed.

 

[Francesca R]

I was simply pointing out that this thread was not about me, but about the tax.

You were doing more than that, which was to state that the tax was useless. Which appears to be born of a lack of understanding how it would impact incentives, or alternatively of a lack of personal support for reducing emissions. Or perhaps both. You'd need to say. . . .

 

[DC]

If they really wanted to drive innovation, give tax breaks to companies that improve efficiency via innovation.

Or a complete, 20 year tax moratorium on all profits from any new systems developed.

By requiring not just efficiency, but efficiency through technological innovation, they will avoid, mostly, problems with gameification where they make themselves less efficient so they can make themselves more efficient.

sounds not specific enough. the goal is reduciing CO2. when CO2 is taxed, everyone that is reducing the CO2 emissions will get a tax break and the goal of reducing CO2 is reached that way.