Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

Yes, if China isn't doing it, why should we

The only problem is that the Opposition has the same targets, so whoever you vote for will try to make the same reduction.

(Unless they're lying about their policy intentions, of course )

[Tassie Blues]

i am in the travel industry and airlines are already putting up airfares by $7-$10 and the carbon tax hasnt even got through parliment yet

I suppose that is Gillard's fault then.

its her carbon tax isnt it?

[cripple]

Not her airlines. Maybe should be talking sammy newmans mates "Ken & Marg"

[redandblack]

TB, I think you totally missed the point.

If the carbon tax doesn't come in until next July, why are they putting up their fares now and why should Gillard be blamed for it?

I'd say they would be facing major fines for unfair pricing practices.

[Q.]

As a nation we have the opportunity to take a progressive stance, to take the initiative and be the fore-runners in tackling climate change. For once we can show leadership, which will not just impact on our carbon output, but initiate other countries to do the same.

Tired of being the dog that comes running when America whistles, this should have essentially been a bi-partisan policy that made headlines across the globe for it's forward thinking.

Instead, we have one party that has no balls, another that has no substance, a mainstream media running it's own agenda, and a gullible public, all generating a partisan slanging match.

As the world watches Labor get smashed at the next election (thanks, in part, to their complete failure to sell a sound policy), no Government in their right mind will look to take any of the steps we have attempted to take.

And when other countries finally do take the initiative, our backwater country can be remembered as the one who cried "but we'll all be rooned!".

[Squawk]

Fair comments Quichey. That probably sums up the big picture pretty well. Unfortunately, not only do the major parties lack the ability to sell the big picture, they are simply unable to address the details.

Next (general) question:

Will Julia and Wayne tap into the Treasury to pay for advertising (selling ) the Carbon Tax?

[redandblack]

Yes.

[Squawk]

Yes.

Has that been announced already, or is that your humble expectation?

[redandblack]

I think it's been announced, but putting my biased hat on, I think it's necessary.

I think they were politically silly to say they'd stop such advertising after the Howard glut of advertising.

[wycbloods]

i am in the travel industry and airlines are already putting up airfares by $7-$10 and the carbon tax hasnt even got through parliment yet

I suppose that is Gillard's fault then.

its her carbon tax isnt it?

So you point out yourself that it hasn't even gone through parliament let alone come into effect but you buy the airlines raising their prices because of the carbon tax.

No wonder you don't like the carbon tax you don't understand it.

[Q.]

If only he were our opposition leader

Turnbull highlights Abbott's climate change indecision

Mr Turnbull has said he still personally supports a market-based emissions trading scheme and has described the Opposition's "direct action" plan as expensive and easy to dump.

But today, asked if the Government's carbon price plan has merit, he was more circumspect.

"Look, I think the best thing I can say is not express a personal view and just simply say that the Coalition's policy is to be opposed to it," he said.

[Interceptor]

Mr Turnbull has said he still personally supports a market-based emissions trading scheme and has described the Opposition's "direct action" plan as expensive and easy to dump.

I don't think you'll find too many people people who wouldn't favour Turnbull over Abbott, but while "Mr Negative" polls well he's unlikely to be replaced.
I think it also worth remembering that the proposed ETS probably would be in place by now if the Greens hadn't been unwilling to compromise like they have now.

[Dutchy]

Seems that different politicians are judged by different standards?

This debate isnt about other politicians, did she lie to the Australian public or not, yes or no?

[redandblack]

Well, Dutchy, I've taken the time and trouble to answer most of your posts in detail, but you haven't returned the courtesy, so I'll wait until you answer my questions.

PS: It seems as if you don't want to answer my post about mandates, either.

[Tassie Blues]

Your spot on I don’t understand the carbon tax but then I don’t even think out PM understands it herself so how the hell am I going to!

What I do understand is that this tax is on the pollution/carbon each and every person on this planet contributes to so why is only about 10% of the tax paying population of Australia expected to pay for it. I am lucky enough to be in that so called “rich” 10% but my wife and I have worked very hard for many years to get where we are at today and I am more than happy to pay more tax to help the environment but it’s not only the rich that have and continue to stuff up this planet up yet we are the ones having to pay for it.

Approximately 35% of the average Australian household’s carbon omissions come from driving a car so why has petrol been exempt from this carbon tax? If they are serious about cutting carbon why not put the tax on petrol and offer a rebate if you have a hybrid or other form of low omissions car. Maybe even electric cars but I guess oil companies contribute to much money to politics for that to ever happen. I don’t understand how a low income family with a late model V8 car not have to pay carbon tax but I have a low omission car and I do have to pay the tax. I think I already pay more than my share of taxes.
If carbon omissions and the environment is the real issue here why collect a carbon tax from everyone and then give it back to 90% of them. Any chance that the politicians and government departments could start driving hybrid cars or even car pool. Maybe catch a bus to parliament house?

I wonder what peoples reaction would be if the carbon tax was as simple as putting the GST up 2%. Wouldn’t that be a much fairer way to raise money for the environment?

[cripple]

As far as i understand not one individual will be paying the carbon tax in their pay packets. The countries 500 biggest polluters will be paying the carbon tax($23 per tonne). The 10% that will be worse off that everyone contiuously refers are those that are already in the position to not need to recieve any sort of government assistance. As far as i am aware those in that 10% who are already doing the right thing (solar panels, environmentally responsible living etc...) will be better off then those that choose to ignore the implications of their actions. They will also be able to choose to use the services of those top 500 polluters who make changes to their business activities and as a result pay less in carbon tax and pass these savings onto the consumer.
If i have made any mistakes any this please let me know but that is how i see it.

[Q.]

@ TB

The 500 companies targeted for the tax produce around 60% of Australia's emissions. The sole purpose of the carbon tax is to not only provide financial incentive to cut emissions, but also provide assistance in restructuring business to attain low carbon emissions.

Households are responsible for a much smaller piece of the emissions pie. The highest 10% of earners won't be compensated because they are in the best position to absorb any extra costs (from business with pricing power passing on the cost to consumers), which will apparently be minimal (ie. the $23/tonne price is only about 2.3 c/kWh for electricity, which is smaller than the increases we have seen recently).

Yes, there isn't huge incentive for households to change habits, although if a household chooses to become more efficient while receiving the compensation, they'll certainly find extra money in the kitty.

[dedja]

Seems that different politicians are judged by different standards?

This debate isnt about other politicians, did she lie to the Australian public or not, yes or no?

Yes ... similar to this

[Dutchy]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

War, is this the same one we still support under a Gillard government? Howard never said we wouldnt go to war as part of an election promise.

Considering Climate Change was a huge issue leading up to the election and we had a hung vote, its easy to make a case that her lie got her the position she is in now.

Didnt she also say she wouldnt backstab Rudd?

How is her credibility going?

[dedja]

She's a politician ... what's your point?