Thread: Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

Forget geo-sequestration! The answer is bio-sequestration, specifically xylo-sequestration. Since trees are locking up carbon in their wood, we should actually be encouraging increased consupmtion of managed forest products and building timber framed, timber clad houses. In fact we should be concentrating of banning banning timber substitues such as plastic and MDF in cabinetry and furniture and legislating for solid timber!

Hi I have been away for 4 days since putting up this post and have now caught up with the comments.

I put up this post to see just how people would react to having to reduce their living standards an cause the reduction in the future living standards of their children, all purely based on a theory that has scared the pants off people all over the world but is far from proven correct, as Damian has well pointed out in comments over this thread.

There is no doubt that the world has cooled since the peak temperatures of 1998 despite increaced CO2 emissions. It is anybody's guess as to where it will go in the future. Also despite many scientists disputing the theory for which there are many dedicated web sites.

Despite the urgency advocated by the greens and pollies, surely the empirical evidence together with scientists arguing against AGW is enough for us to hang back a little before selling the farm.

This is even more pertinent given the fraction of a fraction differnce Australia can make without the big emitters following suit. This is crazy illogical stuff and in my view will go down in history as the biggest blunder by any government of Australia.

I want to know what liability there is around man-influenced global warming.

In 20 years time, when it is found to be nonsense and all the loonies have moved on to new campaigns, will we be able to sue them to recover the losses incurred through this stupidity?

ie, will those who promoted these concepts and "solutions" be held responsible for the damage caused by their actions?

After all, someone who shouted "FIRE" in a crowded room where a person died in the resulting stampede would be held accountable for manslaughter. There isn't much difference here.

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

But it is running out. Look at the rises in food prices around the world.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Yes they are. Use google images to find pictures of acid rain affected forests in Eastern Europe and you'll see what acid rain does. (Here's one to get you started).

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Yeah, ok, I'll give you that one!

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

No the world didn't fall apart, because someone got off their asres and did something about it.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

Have a read of the fable about the ant and the cricket....

So Mr Hancock, are you ready yet to concede that you were wrong on the once of $20b, or won't your pride let you do that?

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

Originally Posted by rhancock

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

Thank you for admitting that you can be wrong, it is sometimes not obvious from the way you jump on people's opinions!

Climate News Policy Brief (March 2008) - THE EMISSIONS TRADING DIVIDEND The introduction of emissions trading in Australia is likely to see the Commonwealth Government generating significant amounts of new revenue through the sale of emission permits. Indicatively, in Climate Institute commissioned economic modelling this “emissions trading dividend” was worth between $7-20 billion in 2020 (Figure 1) assuming auctioning of all permits.

I have taken the liberty to post this extract from your link. Please note the use by your source of the words "Emissions Trading Dividend" and "generating significant amounts of new revenue". If these do not refer to a "tax", ie money collected by a government to do with as it likes, then I don't know what constitutes a tax. You are engaging in semantics Sir!

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

Well, yes, semantics involves defining terms and using them correctly. A tax is charged to pay for services provided by the government. The government is not setting up a new tax, as they did for the GST, for the purpose of generating money to pay for services. They are trying to influence the market to persuade people to change their behaviour. They will, in the process, end up collecting money. Garnaut discusses giving away the permits for free, which could have the same results, but is much more complicated to set up and much more likely to be unfair than auctioning the permits. If the government decides to give away the permits, there will be no money to try to smooth out the unfairness. Would you be happy then?

Garnaut also discusses why it is important that Australia takes a lead on a push towards a global emissions trading scheme - in short, we emit a bucket load of carbon per capita (2nd in the OECD) and we have most to lose (Barrier Reef, coastal cities, etc).

My belief is that I have a responsibility for the results of my actions. That's it in a nutshell. I have to clear up my own mess. I don't care if its 1% of everyone else's mess or not, its still mess I made.

Oh, and a debate is one person setting out their opinions, and someone else setting out opposing opinions. No 'jumping on' involved. I have strong opinions on this, and so I am prepared to stand up for my point of view, but I am also happy to admit the validity of others' opinions, especially where I don't agree with them.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

Says it all

Like the way you think Bid Shed

Personally I see it as the Rudd equivalent of the GST. Another tax windfall that will be returned in middle class welfare to buy a couple of future elections. There are trading schemes extant (EU, NZ is about to start etc) but they all suffer from the problem of pandering to special interest groups such as refiners, coal miners, auto manufacturers etc. Basically the worlds pollies dont have the balls to do what is needed. They are not capable of implementing a scheme that will solve the problem as they are beholden to their financial backers.

Oil aint going down, this will have much more of an effect than any carbon tax. Maybe market economics will offer something worthwhile after all.

I found some of the points made in this article in The Australian quite interesting, not least because they support what I have been saying above

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

[/SIZE]

I fully and 110% (excluding carbon tax) agree with Big Shed, it's nothing but pure carp and nothing more than a tax. When this new carbon tax is released, watch the next quarter for inflation, which it will and can only do, we'll pay higher interest rates because Rudd (taking a leaf from Sir Idiot Keating "The recession we had to have"), will have put extra burden and jacked up the cost of living because we had to have a Carbon Tax.

It will put immense pressures on the cost of living, everything will have to go up, because we somehow have to find a way of paying for what is pure carp. Carbon Tax will achieve nothing - how do you cut your "carbon footprint" (please!) when you can do nothing more to cut your energy consumption? Stop breathing?

But wait, Kev07 won't be paying for his electricity, gas, water or petrol, as he said in the Sunday papers, words to the effect, "previous PMs didn't pay so why should he?"

Especially when he said earlier that we all had to share the burden.

Not so good is he, when you take off the rose coloured glasses?

Economic conservative? More like how do Mr. Swan and I make more taxes. Both of whom were Goss' men - who farked up in Qld. So no, they have no economic credibility.