Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Sojourner]

One point that I will concede is that there must be no shortage of companies across Australia that could likely cut their Carbon Emissions very easily, likely in some case for no extra cost or for a small investment that would be recouped on electricity savings and so on, yet choose not to largely because of having a management that is largely incompetent.

Its fair to say that perhaps some type of scheme might at least put a rocket up some of these firms so that even very basic action could be taken and that is likely not a bad thing either. If its good enough for everyone to recycle at home and to fit CFL globes and so on then its fair enough that workplaces should do likewise. Clearly they don't get the rebate for solar panels, yet likely they could be done as a tax deduction and actually earn the business money in terms of lowered electric bills on peak usage times and so on. EGas cars usually run to $300 more than a petrol version, how hard can it be for a purchasing department to make a decision to switch to EGas vehicles as opposed to petrol and again save the firm money in the process. Its unfortunate when companies have to dragged kicking and screaming to actually save themselves money as well as carbon, yet those are the breaks I suppose!

[dedja]

Never fear Whyalla, the Mad Monk is here to save you being wiped off the map ...

[fish]

The carbon tax and compensation package has started to take shape with the release of a major report from climate advisor Professor Ross Garnaut.

HOUSEHOLDS would receive an increasingly large share of the revenue raised from Labor's carbon tax at the same time as industry assistance declined, under a plan proposed by climate adviser Ross Garnaut.

The 10-year proposal could boost the Gillard Government's chances of selling the tax because it contradicts Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's claim that household compensation would be wound back as the carbon price was ratcheted up.

But industry won't be happy as it gets less than was previously on the table.

Prof Garnaut released the final update to his landmark 2008 climate change review today at the National Press Club in Canberra.

He recommends that for three years after the carbon tax is introduced in mid-2012 some 55 per cent of the revenue should go to low and middle-income households to assist with price increases.

But once an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is introduced in 2015 the economist argues 60 per cent of the revenue should go to the less well-off.

That could then rise to 65 per cent by 2021/22.

Most of the assistance would be in the form of tax cuts with the tax free threshold raised to $25,000. That would result in 1.2 million Australians paying no tax.

Other rates would be rejigged to ensure people earning more than $80,000 a year wouldn't benefit.

"Over time, as the transitional assistance to business declines, there will be a further opportunity to provide more assistance to households through a second round of tax cuts," Prof Garnaut said.

Welfare benefits would be boosted as well to help those who don't gain from tax cuts.

[mick]

The carbon tax and compensation package has started to take shape with the release of a major report from climate advisor Professor Ross Garnaut.

HOUSEHOLDS would receive an increasingly large share of the revenue raised from Labor's carbon tax at the same time as industry assistance declined, under a plan proposed by climate adviser Ross Garnaut.

The 10-year proposal could boost the Gillard Government's chances of selling the tax because it contradicts Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's claim that household compensation would be wound back as the carbon price was ratcheted up.

But industry won't be happy as it gets less than was previously on the table.

Prof Garnaut released the final update to his landmark 2008 climate change review today at the National Press Club in Canberra.

He recommends that for three years after the carbon tax is introduced in mid-2012 some 55 per cent of the revenue should go to low and middle-income households to assist with price increases.

But once an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is introduced in 2015 the economist argues 60 per cent of the revenue should go to the less well-off.

That could then rise to 65 per cent by 2021/22.

Most of the assistance would be in the form of tax cuts with the tax free threshold raised to $25,000. That would result in 1.2 million Australians paying no tax.

Other rates would be rejigged to ensure people earning more than $80,000 a year wouldn't benefit.

"Over time, as the transitional assistance to business declines, there will be a further opportunity to provide more assistance to households through a second round of tax cuts," Prof Garnaut said.

Welfare benefits would be boosted as well to help those who don't gain from tax cuts.

$80,000 pa income the new "rich"??? Labor is setting itself up for a rout at the next election. How many voters in the mortgage belt marginals earn more than $80,000? A lot I reckon especially in the eastern states. Wealth distribution pure and simple.

[redandblack]

mick, that is Garnaut's recommendation.

It isn't necessarily the Governments's policy.

[White Line Fever]

Is this just a way to make money off some peoples mindset that they believe they can actually alter the cycle of planet earth.

All the stats are for the last 150 years.

How do we not know the cycle is in a 5000 year cycle and nothing we do can change the environment?

What a joke.

[Gingernuts]

This may have been said by someone else before - but I think the main problem with this 'tax' is that there has been no clear message on where the profits go.

If all proceeds of this tax went directly back into environmental initiatives aimed as reducing emissions such as:

- Construction of wind farms, wave farms, geothermal plants & solar plants;
- A continuing residential solar scheme;
- Research & development grants to universities and the CSIRO for things like clean coal, biofuel etc.;
- Grants to develop industries that support 'clean' fuel/power like solar panel manufacture;

Then I would be 100% supportive of it (and I don't even really give 2 shits about climate change as such - I just recognise the need to treat our environment with ongoing respect if we are to sustain our planet).

Why is it so hard for the government to come out and make a statement like that??

Also - what is the point of just giving the money back to lower income earners? Here's an idea, give them solar panels so they will never get a power bill ever again. This is far more constructive and would also deal with the emissions problem at both the producer and consumer ends, having a two fold effect.

[auto]

This may have been said by someone else before - but I think the main problem with this 'tax' is that there has been no clear message on where the profits go.

If all proceeds of this tax went directly back into environmental initiatives aimed as reducing emissions such as:

- Construction of wind farms, wave farms, geothermal plants & solar plants;
- A continuing residential solar scheme;
- Research & development grants to universities and the CSIRO for things like clean coal, biofuel etc.;
- Grants to develop industries that support 'clean' fuel/power like solar panel manufacture;

Then I would be 100% supportive of it (and I don't even really give 2 shits about climate change as such - I just recognise the need to treat our environment with ongoing respect if we are to sustain our planet).

Why is it so hard for the government to come out and make a statement like that??

Also - what is the point of just giving the money back to lower income earners? Here's an idea, give them solar panels so they will never get a power bill ever again. This is far more constructive and would also deal with the emissions problem at both the producer and consumer ends, having a two fold effect.

Said solar panels will incur the new "solar radiation absorbtion" tax

[Sojourner]

What happens to the companies that make Toothpaste, Deodorant, Cleaning Products and so on in Australia who have to increase their prices, when people realise that they can buy all those products at places like Cunninghams that are made in Indonesia and China where they pay no Carbon Tax at all and maintain much lower prices for essentially the very same thing - same brand in many cases?

[redandblack]

Many thousands have rallied in the capital cities in favour of climate change action, vastl more than the shock-jock organised rally.

It's been top story on nearly all news outlets.

The Australian's coverage:

"Coalition urges more action on forests, as rallies back pro-carbon tax campaign"

The story is all about the coalition, except for a couple of paragraphs at the bottom.

Not only do they have no credibility at all, they're masters of manipulating the bews.

As they say, Limited News.

[fish]

How do we not know the cycle is in a 5000 year cycle and nothing we do can change the environment?

The same way that we know that the earth is not flat, or that pigs cannot fly: Science.

[fish]

Many thousands have rallied in the capital cities in favour of climate change action, vastl more than the shock-jock organised rally.

I attended the Adelaide rally today. Very well organised and the speakers were excellent.

ABOUT 5000 climate change activists descended on Victoria Square to be told they will win the carbon tax fight.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor told about 5000 people at a rally in Victoria Square that those supporting a price on pollution were in a struggle with those who risked the health and prosperity of all Australian children by rejecting the views of climate scientists.

"We are in a struggle with those who will make action on pollution and clean energy the scapegoat for electricity prices rises, those who ignore the fact that electricity price rises have been driven by fuel and network costs," Mr Connor said.

"We are in a struggle against those in politics, business and the media who persist in a fear campaign, intentionally frightening workers and low-income households with the worst possible scenarios about taking action.

"(We are in a struggle against) those who wilfully ignore the support packages that will be there for families and businesses as we switch to a cleaner economy."

[Interceptor]

Many thousands have rallied in the capital cities in favour of climate change action, vastl more than the shock-jock organised rally.
As they say, Limited News.

Double yawn.

Just the usual rent-a-crowd (hippies, unionists) with their watermelon politics.
Millions stayed home or went out and did something useful.

Gee your whining about about The Australian is selective.
Can't be as bad as the whingers say if people like Phillip Adams and Peter Beattie regularly contribute as well as publishing articles by other left-leaning people.

[Q.]

Sorry, but the conservative agenda of The Australian is so obvious they don't even bother to hide it.

Their fair and balanced reporting was on display last year when they announced that they want to 'destroy' the Greens.

[fish]

Millions stayed home or went out and did something useful.

If you're talking numbers Interceptor the anti-carbon-tax rally at the same place and time today attracted far less people. I only saw three of them and they were vastly overwhelmed by those who came to support action on climate change.

[Interceptor]

Millions stayed home or went out and did something useful.

If you're talking numbers Interceptor the anti-carbon-tax rally at the same place and time today attracted far less people. I only saw three of them and they were vastly overwhelmed by those who came to support action on climate change.

The only numbers that really count will be at the next election.

[Interceptor]

Sorry, but the conservative agenda of The Australian is so obvious they don't even bother to hide it.

Their fair and balanced reporting was on display last year when they announced that they want to 'destroy' the Greens.

I'll give critics some credit when they actually provide reasonable critiques of the articles that so upset them.
Maybe that's too much to ask though, it's easier to play the man when you've assumed a position and aren't interested in differing opinions.
Sure that works both ways, but more often than not, the left seem to assume the moral and intellectual superiority (both false), then choose to mock and stiffle the voices of those who disagree.

[fish]

Millions stayed home or went out and did something useful.

If you're talking numbers Interceptor the anti-carbon-tax rally at the same place and time today attracted far less people. I only saw three of them and they were vastly overwhelmed by those who came to support action on climate change.

The only numbers that really count will be at the next election.

So you've changed your tune and the numbers at the rally don't count now?

Whichever way you look at it todays anti-carbon-tax "rally" was a monumental flop compared to the "take action on climate change" rally!

[redandblack]

Well Interceptor, I did give a critique of the article I mentioned.

As for the left assuming the moral and intellectual superiority, it seems to be only the right who ever mention that, unless you can give a reasonable critique and reference for that statement.

Your statement "Just the usual rent-a-crowd (hippies, unionists) with their watermelon politics" doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable critique, more just a knee-jerk slogan or prejudice?

[Interceptor]

Well Interceptor, I did give a critique of the article I mentioned.

I wonder if you're happier with this piece then?

As for the left assuming the moral and intellectual superiority, it seems to be only the right who ever mention that, unless you can give a reasonable critique and reference for that statement.

It's a theme that veers slightly off thread topic, but this recent opinion piece uses a recent example as basis for this point of view.

Your statement "Just the usual rent-a-crowd (hippies, unionists) with their watermelon politics" doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable critique, more just a knee-jerk slogan or prejudice?

Yes, guilty as charged.
The rallies were obviously well organised and did attract fair crowds with a variety of people.