Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[lionking]

Every politician in the world lies on that yardstick.

As has been pointed out countless times in a number of threads, with St Tony Abbott being a repeat offender.

 

[a_unique_person]

And right on queue....

You mean "right on cue".

 

[lionking]

Now I am genuinely confused. Why are we doing it if it isn't to stop the globe warming?

Can you give a cite, anywhere, where the government has said that our carbon price will stop global warming?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Of course. I don't think you'll find me ever arguing that imposing a tax boosts output or competitiveness.

Again, I thank you for your honesty.

Sincerely

How does not predicting a minority government make her a bad PM?

I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying she is either lying now (see post #8) or she is just plain wrong. Perhaps you can somehow back up her claims.

 

[bit_pattern]

LESS than a quarter of the heavy greenhouse emitters that will directly pay the carbon tax openly back Tony Abbott's ''pledge in blood'' to repeal the scheme, a survey by The Saturday Age has found.
The survey shows concerns on the design of the scheme, with some calling for a quicker shift to a market-based emissions trading scheme, scrapping a planned floor price and more generous compensation.
The Saturday Age asked 40 big emitters on the government's list of 294 companies that will pay the carbon tax whether they were interested in repealing or changing the scheme.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-tax-scheme-20120706-21mn9.html#ixzz1zvSzTcAw

 

[lionking]

Er, post 85.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Can you give a cite, anywhere, where the government has said that our carbon price will stop global warming?

Then what's the point of it if not to stop (or mitigate) the globe warming?

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes. The goal of a carbon price is to send a price signal to high polluting industries start accounting for the external costs of their polluting activities. It is one measure being used to help Australia meet its paltry yet bipartisan emissions reduction target of a 5% reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020.

Now, about the rest of my post:

And seeing as though the Labor Party's goose is well and truly cooked and we will soon have an new PM it would be instructive to start critiquing the policies we will have in place after 2013 - maybe you could outline a cheaper alternative policy to meet the bipartisan target of a 5% reduction on 2000 emission levels by 2020?

I await, breath bated, in anticipation of your response.

Alfie?

 

[lionking]

Then what's the point of it if not to stop (or mitigate) the globe warming?

Cite?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Cite?

Point?

 

[Francesca R]

Again, I thank you for your honesty.

Sincerely

Shame about yours. Are you going to be honest and admit that you have no grounds for stating the carbon tax is useless? That is what I assume whether you do that or not of course . . .

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie?

What's the rest of the world doing? What's China doing, India or the USA? Have they started anything yet?. I reckon we get on board when the rest of the world does - an even playing field.

I have answered this now but I reckon that this is a topic that deserves a different thread. What I want to know is why we are doing this?

 

[Francesca R]

I reckon we get on board when the rest of the world does - an even playing field.

The most likely even playing field there is that nobody prices carbon until much later. Anyway the EU already does it so you're not the first.

And, as above, those coal deposits hardly level Australia's playing field relative to the rest of the world, so unless Australia wants to share out the extraction rent with everyone else, level-playing-field talk is a dodge rather than some ethical position.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Shame about yours. Are you going to be honest and admit that you have no grounds for stating the carbon tax is useless? That is what I assume whether you do that or not of course . . .

I don't believe I have been dishonest and am saddened by your hostility. I actually thought I had answered the question.

Simply put, if the carbon tax does not mitigate climate change it is useless. If it reduces our economic viability for a zero end game, it is essentially useless. If we implement it to our own detriment while the rest of the world happily continues increasing theirs, it is useless.

I can agree that we should do something about mitigating climate change effects, but not something useless or stupid.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The most likely even playing field there is that nobody prices carbon until much later. Anyway the EU already does it so you're not the first.

And how is that working out? Europe in good shape is it?

 

[lionking]

And how is that working out? Europe in good shape is it?

So Europe's in poor shape because of the carbon tax? Support it.

 

[Francesca R]

Simply put, if the carbon tax does not mitigate climate change it is useless.

Since the "if" is wrong, so is the then part. Hence you would apparently seem to confirm that it is not useless.

If there is any reduction/slowdown of CO2 emission at all, then climate change is mitigated, unless you believe CO2 has zero impact on climate, which is a different subject.

If there is no reduction/slowdown in CO2 emission at all, then there is no loss to economic output either--it would merely be transferred from one part of the economy to another

 

[Francesca R]

And how is that working out? Europe in good shape is it?

Rather ineffectively of late since there is a surplus of emission permits, hence it does not have much power as an incentive to change production source. As I said above, a flat carbon tax is probably a better policy.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Since the "if" is wrong, so is the then part. Hence you would apparently seem to confirm that it is not useless.

Others here seem to infer that the tax isn't actually in place to stop the emissions of co2 and reducing AGW. The "if" remains valid in light of same and no answer to how the tax will ultimately reduce emission.

If there is any reduction/slowdown of CO2 emission at all, then climate change is mitigated, unless you believe CO2 has zero impact on climate, which is a different subject.

I am with you here. How much will our tax mitigate climate change?

If there is no reduction/slowdown in CO2 emission at all, then there is no loss to economic output either--it would merely be transferred from one part of the economy to another

I agree for the most part. But this would mean the loss of jobs and industry in some sectors in exchange for others. Yes?

 

[lionking]

Cite?

Okay, another demonstration you cannot support your contentions. How about answering bit pattern's question on how Abbott will achieve a 5% reduction.