by Dog_ger » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:28 pm
by fish » Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:56 pm
Can't say I disagree with you Darth but in terms of global emissions you'd have to include the US, Russia, Japan and Germany and even then you'd only be getting to 60% of the worlds CO2 emissions.Darth Vader wrote:China, India etc need to be restrained and that is never going to happen.
by Bully » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:33 pm
Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
by fish » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:42 pm
Until the details of the tax (the amount and what it covers) and the compensation package are finalised it is difficult to work out who will benefit directly from the carbon tax.Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
by fish » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:44 pm
I agree Bulldog announcing the tax so early before the details have been worked out just doesn't make sense to me. It has allowed the scare campaign to generate and sustain momentum and until there are details on the tax it is difficult to deflect that campaign.Bulldog wrote:Its time for Julia to start talking on whats going to happen. If she doesnt it could do her more harm then good as voters will start to turn not knowing whats going down.
by Dog_ger » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:35 pm
by mick » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:39 pm
Dog_ger wrote:I have not read the previous 7 pages.
Where is this tax going to go...?
What's it going to be used for...?
by Dog_ger » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:55 pm
by fish » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:12 pm
Continuing on from this point I've had a bit of a look around for carbon emission calculators, which enable you to estimate your carbon emissions based on your household and travel practices. There are a fair few around - some are more user-friendly than others and some include or don't include various aspects of consumption/waste.fish wrote:...people and companies with low carbon emissions will be better off as they will avoid some of the tax. I suspect that people with high emissions lifestyles will be hardest hit.
by redandblack » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:31 am
Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
by mick » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:59 am
redandblack wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
BHP.
They've just announced a $48 billion dollar mining expansion.
Carry on, though, we can't let the facts intrude on a disastrous tax.
by Q. » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:00 am
by redandblack » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:03 am
by scoob » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:04 am
redandblack wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
BHP.
They've just announced a $48 billion dollar mining expansion.
Carry on, though, we can't let the facts intrude on a disastrous tax.
by mick » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:04 am
Quichey wrote:A $48 Billion 'punt'?
by Leaping Lindner » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:57 am
by redandblack » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:59 am
scoob wrote:redandblack wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
BHP.
They've just announced a $48 billion dollar mining expansion.
Carry on, though, we can't let the facts intrude on a disastrous tax.
Are you saying that the Carbon Tax is a benefit for BHP and a reason behind their expansion? Interesting point, can you explain how?
by Bat Pad » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:07 am
redandblack wrote:scoob wrote:redandblack wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Hands up, who really thinks the carbon tax will benefit you...?
Names Please.
BHP.
They've just announced a $48 billion dollar mining expansion.
Carry on, though, we can't let the facts intrude on a disastrous tax.
Are you saying that the Carbon Tax is a benefit for BHP and a reason behind their expansion? Interesting point, can you explain how?
No, that hasn't been mentioned at all
I'm saying BHP have calculated that the carbon tax isn't a barrier to them expanding.
mick, commercial reality doesn't support your 'argument'.
by redandblack » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:20 am
by scoob » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:16 pm
redandblack wrote:Fair enough. The tone of the thread has been that the tax would be a disaster, so I was addressing that.
You're right, I agree that BHP doesn't see it as a benefit, but my point is that they certainly don't see it as a barrier to a massive investment.
The argument that they're taking a $43 billion dollar punt on what may or may not happen in Parliament is, IMO, fanciful.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |