• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Carbon Tax (2 Viewers)

Do you support the proposed carbon tax?


  • Total voters
    87

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
In terms of both costs and benefits the opposition's direct action plan is worse than a market based mechanism

Therefore someone against a carbon price would do best to vote Labor. Discuss.
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
In terms of both costs and benefits the opposition's direct action plan is worse than a market based mechanism

Therefore someone against a carbon price would do best to vote Labor. Discuss.
Someone against anything labor is for would do best to vote labor because they couldn't direct a stream of piss
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
why stop at taxing carbon? why not tax water vapour? you know a green house gas that actually has noticeable effects on the climate. WE GOT TO STOP EVAPORATION ITS WARMING THE CLIMATE GUYS!!!!!
 

Optimus Prime

Electric Beats
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Wherevr sentient beings are being mistreated
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Assuming that something is going to be done about climate change then a carbon tax is the best way. Fuck off direct action. Fuck off "emissions trading scheme." ETS is more accurately a scheme in which more wealth is transferred to banks. If we agree there are negative externalities associated with carbon then there is nothing wrong with taxing it while still having a free market. Unfortunately the way they are spending the money seems like it will be more socialist wealth redistribution.
 

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
which aspects do you think are socialist?

one of the suggestions from Garnaut was raising the tax free income threshold to $25k, I'd be more than ok with that
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
The debate has been about whether we should take action on climate change. This completely ignores that even if we wanted to take action, we actually can't. Australia does not have the ability to stop climate change. The government's carbon tax will not stop it, or even reduce it. Nor will the direct action plan.

Hearing some of the comment from people in favour of the tax you'd think the introduction of this tax will solve the climate change problem. Well it won't. Is climate change happening? Probably, but there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

This tax does not represent 'real action' at all. It's simply designed so the government looks like it's doing something. Without the big emitters acting also, it will just likely mean worse environmental outcomes as our emissions are exported to countries with lower environmental standards.

A policy that cannot even achieve its policy goal (reducing man made climate change) should be rejected.
 

Optimus Prime

Electric Beats
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Wherevr sentient beings are being mistreated
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Yes Garnaut's suggestion is great as lowering the tax free threshold is fair and also has greatest impact for those on lower incomes (since they need to spend a larger percentage of their income on basic living expenses) while also benefiting those on higher incomes. Unfortunately that is Garnaut's report and not the ALP policy. Instead they will probably introduce more retarded middle-class welfare or rebate people in such a way that it doesn't actually deter them from wasting energy.

Rafy: if the money is spent such that Australia could develop and manufacture new technology it would be of benefit for everyone. Of course Australia can't singlehandedly reduce global emissions, but most other developed economies, and even China and India already have a price on CO2 emissions. The policy goal isn't to reduce man made climate change, it is to reduce emissions and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
The policy goal isn't to reduce man made climate change, it is to reduce emissions and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
That's an extraordinary claim that's just moving the goal posts as it becomes clear the carbon tax won't actually do anything to stop climate change. The ultimate policy goal of pricing carbon has always been to mitigate human induced climate change. Emissions reduction is simply the means to that end. (But as I note above it's not an effective means at all.)

"We are fighting to price carbon to tackle climate change" - Gillard. There's hundreds more quotes like that from all members of the government, climate reports etc.
The tax is being designed by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. It will be administered by the Department of Climate Change.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
The debate has been about whether we should take action on climate change. This completely ignores that even if we wanted to take action, we actually can't. Australia does not have the ability to stop climate change. The government's carbon tax will not stop it, or even reduce it. Nor will the direct action plan.

Hearing some of the comment from people in favour of the tax you'd think the introduction of this tax will solve the climate change problem. Well it won't. Is climate change happening? Probably, but there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

This tax does not represent 'real action' at all. It's simply designed so the government looks like it's doing something. Without the big emitters acting also, it will just likely mean worse environmental outcomes as our emissions are exported to countries with lower environmental standards.

A policy that cannot even achieve its policy goal (reducing man made climate change) should be rejected.
Oh Rafy, really? Per capita we're emitting at any obscene level , you can't possibly talk about developing countries needing to cut down first and more substantially.
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Oh Rafy, really? Per capita we're emitting at any obscene level , you can't possibly talk about developing countries needing to cut down first and more substantially.
The biggest changes that need to happen are allowing for people to move freely between countries, imo. The infrastructure and output of many developing countries is far less efficient and far more polluting compared to our stuff. Etc.

*pushes the barrow*
 

Blastus

Liberty Matrix
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
961
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
What's the cost of setting up a nuclear industry in Australia versus setting up solar w/ water storage or hot rock geothermal + distribution?

Or is that a thesis topic in and of itself.
 

Jimmy Recard

Banned
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
555
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
what is wrong

with making a percentage of the power for new building developments to be sourced from solar?
 

Jimmy Recard

Banned
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
555
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The policy goal isn't to reduce man made climate change, it is to reduce emissions and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
yes not taxing fuel will certainly do this


this it starting to seem like a retribution tax against the miners
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,911
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
this is why I keep saying the mining industry is the heroic idustry of patriots
the mining industry will bear the brunt of the rise of socialist eco-facism in australia and will hence be fighting on the front line for freedom and prosperity
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top