SA Footy

Posted: **Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:15 pm**

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6032224436

Well, keep throwing the pennies in the jar for the year.

Im sure Labor voters would even question this.....poor form Gillard and co. :evil:

Posted: **Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:40 pm**

Take it easy, mate.

That presumes all sorts of things, including the price of carbon being $30 and doesn't take into account any of the compensation.

Both the price and the compensation has yet to be decided.

On the other hand, Mr Abbott is going to spend $30 billion dollars on something he doesn't believe in and hasn't told us how he's going to cost it.

Probably from the disabled, I presume.

Posted: **Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:23 pm**

redandblack wrote:Take it easy, mate.

That presumes all sorts of things, including the price of carbon being $30 and doesn't take into account any of the compensation.

Both the price and the compensation has yet to be decided.

On the other hand, Mr Abbott is going to spend $30 billion dollars on something he doesn't believe in and hasn't told us how he's going to cost it.

Probably from the disabled, I presume.

R&B , you seem to explain it better than the Gillard government ever will........ :roll:

Posted: **Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:29 pm**

I must admit I'm struggling to understand the rationale of the carbon tax but will try to keep an open mind until all the facts are out.

The story I have so far is ...

1. You tax the polluters
2. Some of the revenue is used to administer the system
3. The polluters then pass on the costs to consumers
4. Prices go up
5. The government then compensates some of the consumers
6. Go back to 1.

How does this change the behavour of the polluters? :-??

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:33 am**

Thanks southee, much appreciated

dedja, I'm not an expert on the proposed carbon tax, but I think you could amend your nice round-robin as follows:

The tax is on the large polluters.

If they pass on the cost rise, they will become less competitive with their rivals, so consumers will favour the lower priced goods. Free enterprise being what it is, the polluters will find methods of production that are more efficient and less polluting, thus reducing carbon emissions. Many countries throughout the world already have this scheme.

The tax collected is from the polluters and will go back into compensation, either by way of tax cuts, rebates or other means, to consumers.

The end result is (hopefully) a reduction in carbon emissions, a more environmentally friendly energy industry and a revenue and cost neutral situation for consumers.

The carbon tax is merely a first step towards a carbon trading scheme.

When you take the scare tactics away from it, the carbon tax idea is a first step towards taking action on climate change. It's even endorsed by the WA Farmer's Federation, hardly a left-wing organisation.

Compare that with Tony Abbott's plan. He proposes a token scheme, costing $30 billion, uncosted, for a problem he doesn't think exists.

Of course, the media haven't sussed that out at all, which is a major surprise

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:39 am**

If individuals gave a shit about their ecological footprint they could save $16 a week by being more energy conscious.

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:43 am**

Quichey wrote:If individuals gave a **** about their ecological footprint they could save $16 a week by being more energy conscious.

In reality, how could you save $16 per week?

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:52 am**

SJABC wrote:
Quichey wrote:If individuals gave a **** about their ecological footprint they could save $16 a week by being more energy conscious.

In reality, how could you save $16 per week?

Get up at 4AM and walk the 20km to work...

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:07 am**

Yeah, I'm not THAT worried about the environment.

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:34 am**

Was on the news the other day that Housing SA tenants are not permitted to put Solar Panels on their roofs even if they wish to do so at their own cost, yet can have Evaporative Air Conditioning systems fitted if they so wish... Makes me wonder what the policy really is from the ALP in regards to reducing Carbon Consumption, especially when Housing Trust Tenants normally cannot access Gas for their homes and have to use the most uneconomical electric water storage heaters which clearly soak up plenty of carbon emissions. Maybe its a good opportunity for the ALP/Green governments across Australia to get their policy consistent both State and Federally before preaching to everyone else.

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:06 am**

Quichey wrote:Get up at 4AM and walk the 20km to work...

I need my car for work, and besides my fuel for my job is paid for by my company, so next suggestion ?

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:06 pm**

redandblack wrote:Thanks southee, much appreciated

dedja, I'm not an expert on the proposed carbon tax, but I think you could amend your nice round-robin as follows:

The tax is on the large polluters.

If they pass on the cost rise, they will become less competitive with their rivals, so consumers will favour the lower priced goods. Free enterprise being what it is, the polluters will find methods of production that are more efficient and less polluting, thus reducing carbon emissions. Many countries throughout the world already have this scheme.

The tax collected is from the polluters and will go back into compensation, either by way of tax cuts, rebates or other means, to consumers.

The end result is (hopefully) a reduction in carbon emissions, a more environmentally friendly energy industry and a revenue and cost neutral situation for consumers.

The carbon tax is merely a first step towards a carbon trading scheme.

When you take the scare tactics away from it, the carbon tax idea is a first step towards taking action on climate change. It's even endorsed by the WA Farmer's Federation, hardly a left-wing organisation.

Compare that with Tony Abbott's plan. He proposes a token scheme, costing $30 billion, uncosted, for a problem he doesn't think exists.

Of course, the media haven't sussed that out at all, which is a major surprise

Just one small flaw in this ...

You cannot purchase power directly from a generator as your contract is with a retailer. All power generated in Australia (apart from WA) is delivered to the energy market administered by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and regulated by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). So, as a consumer, you can't selectively purchase efficient power from inefficient (dirty).

Yes, there are some green contracts that some of the retailers provide by you still dont know where the power is generated.

So it wont be the consumer that provides that market forces that change behaviour, but the retailers themselves who negotiate directly with generators for contracts. OK, so what you say ... it's still market forces.

Well, some companies operate in both the generation and retail space ... so, guess what, they are compromised.

I've worked in the power and gas industries for some time and I'm yet to be convinced that a carbon tax is the answer ... but as stated earlier, I'll give final judgement when all the details are out.

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:18 pm**

Now I have a slight dilemma..
If I stay retired I'll be compensated, assuming the means test is about the same as for the other Senior retiree concessions I get now.
But if I return to work part-time, as I had mentioned planning recently in another thread on this forum, I have to think about the factor of losing the compensation.
The issue is, do I want to work enough extra hours to make it worth it still?

So, I'll now wait for the details to be declared, while Public Hospitals in all states (except SA and Victoria) are seeking Locum doctors "urgently" according to the adverts in the journals.
(There are even emailed adverts this week saying, "We need cover for 5 weeks can you do even one of those weeks for us?")

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:19 pm**

redandblack wrote:
Both the price and the compensation has yet to be decided.

Does anyone think that this tax will benefit anyone but the political superannuation fund?

It sure isn't going to save the planet on a world scale, from climate change. :oops:

The poluters will go off shore to a country like china. Where there is no such tax.

Like everyother manufacturing industry has/is doing. :roll:

The final cost will be financial hardship and job losses. :shock:

Posted: **Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:29 pm**

Dog_ger wrote:
redandblack wrote:
Both the price and the compensation has yet to be decided.

Does anyone think that this tax will benefit anyone but the political superannuation fund?

It sure isn't going to save the planet on a world scale, from climate change.

The poluters will go off shore to a country like china. Where there is no such tax.

Like everyother manufacturing industry has/is doing.

The final cost will be financial hardship and job losses.

Well said Dog_ger

Posted: **Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:58 am**

Hasn't happened in any of the countries that already have a carbon tax, Dog_ger.

The UK Government, a conservative government, is also bringing it in.

Posted: **Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:10 am**

finally people are starting to agree with me in saying the carbon tax is stupid and should be stopped at the heels.

there is more ways to stop carbon instead of taxing everyone and people saying 'oh it will only cost u and extra whatever a week'

for starters,as an example...if everyone got out in the fresh air of a night instead of going home and switching on the TV - which uses electricity - which produces carbon and went for a walk or went down the park with the family this would be a better solution then adding another stupid tax onto our daily lives???
and dont say oh this can not been done for the believers of this tax...because it can be done!!
I agree with climate change 100%, but instead of dipping into the pockets of hard working australians maybe julia should look at the alternatives and my example. Encourging community events on weekends instead of staying home and the kids playing xbox all day, or watching the footy all day with the TV on.

Posted: **Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:05 pm**

Bulldog wrote:finally people are starting to agree with me in saying the carbon tax is stupid and should be stopped at the heels.

there is more ways to stop carbon instead of taxing everyone and people saying 'oh it will only cost u and extra whatever a week'

for starters,as an example...if everyone got out in the fresh air of a night instead of going home and switching on the TV - which uses electricity - which produces carbon and went for a walk or went down the park with the family this would be a better solution then adding another stupid tax onto our daily lives???
and dont say oh this can not been done for the believers of this tax...because it can be done!!
I agree with climate change 100%, but instead of dipping into the pockets of hard working australians maybe julia should look at the alternatives and my example. Encourging community events on weekends instead of staying home and the kids playing xbox all day, or watching the footy all day with the TV on.

Mate, I'm for all those things, but I think you would find this would make very little difference, and may increase transport derived emissions.
Look at this chart: http://cait.wri.org/figures/World-FlowChart.jpg

Posted: **Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:58 pm**

look at the local councils and governments working together to produce green areas that cant be touched with development to produce more park lands close to communitys etc.
where i live, there is at least 10 parks or vacant land in a well developed area of brisbane (one of the oldest suburbs) for park land development . Thats where the council rates should be going.
would increase knowledge of your neighbours also and this would decrease breakins and crime as 90% of people u know wouldnt rob u??

Yes this is a hard thing to do but its an alternative to taxing which is the easier way IMO out of this debate of carbon.

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:20 pm**

Here is an industry view: http://comms1.linkmarketservices.com.au ... GK_D10.pdf

BlueScope believes there needs to be an industry sector-by-sector approach, combined with incentives for research
and for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.

A first step could be taken with the electricity sector to introduce a carbon price (either via a tax or trading scheme)
for the electricity generation sector. This would encourage investment in cleaner energy and energy supply. This is a
matter for the power/energy sector to negotiate with the Government. Compensation would be required for low income
households, while a rebate or exemption for the trade-exposed sector would mitigate the loss of competitiveness due
to higher electricity prices.

Trade-exposed industries such as steel should only be brought into the scheme when our major international sectoral
competitors adopt comparable carbon taxes. A threshold test could be adopted so that, for example, the Australian
emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries would not join the scheme until a significant proportion of relevant
competitors face similar carbon prices.

An Australian carbon tax policy must be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, be trade neutral and not
compromise the competitiveness of emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries such as steel, be revenue neutral to
Government, have the lowest cost for the widest range of abatement opportunities, and provide stability for long-term
investment planning.

Personally I find it interesting that we are not looking at the other end of the import/export issue too.
I read a snippet that suggested that each bag of Oranges flown in from California makes a substantial contribution to CO2 load.
Where is the support for local food production?
And why can McCains in Australia threaten to import US potatoes if our farmers won't accept their proposed price reductions?

SA Footy

The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......

Re: The final cost of Labor's carbon tax......