Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5453 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,453
|
By:
I am not 100% convinced that climate change is man made. However anything that leads to less emissions is a positive in itself.
|
|
By:
how much it costs depends on the model we end up with secong - so answer at the moment is an unknown
and spot on angelo - how can reducing pollution be a bad thing??? |
|
By:
Here's the watermelon.
Continuing to sprout his moral nonsense: "how can reducing pollution be a bad thing" Let me get this straight........ One minute it was about "global warming". We're all toast. THEN its about "climate change". We're all doomed. NOW that the science has fallen apart, as scientists worldwide abruptly ABORT from this deceitful-climate-bandwagon and the lies, spin and almost corrupt nature of this hoax become clearer and clearer..................................conveniently, once again the goal posts shift position....ffs  It's about being a care bear and cutting back pollution. And the answer, scream the lot who have fed us complete and utter nonsense, lies and spin over the past few years on this topic......? It lies in an ineffectual tax on EVERYTHING that produces MAXIMUM economic pain with ZERO environmental gain. [smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
too right he is Judgey, as are other Liberals, will be interesting to see how they vote when the time comes
|
|
By:
G'day AP. Good post mate and I agree with some of your points.
Sorry mate, but I fear this climate change-push is more of a ideological move rather than an answer to a catastrophic global problem. Funnily enough I'm all for protecting and nurturing our environment.......really I am. However, a carbon tax is fundamentally flawed and it serves to assist in easing a problem, thats existance is VERY VERY much debatable...... But that aside, its an environmentally ineffectual tax - a carbon tax by itself cannot guarantee any particular level of emissions reductions. Nothing posted on this thread to date has given me reason to think, even for a moment, otherwise. Again, this tax does nothing but inflict severe economic pain on all of us without producing a single positive environmental dividend. |
|
By:
We certainly face challenges in terms of ensuring strong, effective and genuine environmental policy with economics in mind.
I certainly don't have all the answers. But one thing I will say, I think renewable energy is a real winner and its investment is crucial but also I believe real action (hate to use the Abbott mantra, but the wording is appropriate) on the environment can be achieved with some more "outside the square" kind of thinking. But this taxation scheme is truly bonkers. |
|
By:
Judge, wombleoz.
If Malcolm Turnbull believes in climate change, goodluck to him. Liberals CAN cross the floor without expulsion from the party, unlike those within Labor. BUT the credibility and integrity of the "climate change" push or whatever you want to call it - is unsurprisingly diminishing by the day and thats the FACT. Surely you can't be surprised that people are starting to ask some serious questions and are wondering whether its just a fanciful sham..............the propaganda has continued to evolve. Again, I'm all for genuine environmental policy. Protect and nurture nature. But a great big tax on everything that hurts the nation in a BIG way with absolutely no positive environmental dividends? [smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
Its substantial, no denying that and we're talking about Green pollies, Liberal pollies, Labor pollies.......whats your point?
|
|
By:
Your probably right Judge. And your right wombleoz, there are Liberals in parliament that may support (not sure about vote) a carbon tax. Well I disagree strongly those pr1cks too!  This carbon tax if introduced will be felt in a gigantic way, by all of us. Its bloody bad for the country, bad for the economy and ironically, its no fkn use to the environment. Night folks. |
|
By:
Jez, imo you are getting too far caught up in the poltical spin of all this... no science is difinitive to give you the direct yes/no answer you say you need...anybody who knows anything about science understands it is a work in progress and a combination of things can deliver certain assumptions...the science is clear in a universal approach...this is not a political subject, unfortunately it has turned into one
Have a listen to the segment from Lateline last night with the Oz chief scientist...hopefully it will open your eyes and discharge you from all this political tripe with no factual scientific evidence to back and that the last 20 years of information gathering is all a hoax Will someone think of the children  |
|
By:
yes indeed, think of the children!!!!
just look how upset people get about the carbon tax, seems pretty bloody obvious that people will do whatever they can to not pay it and the simplest way to do that is to reduce your energy use bring it on i say  |
|
By:
spot on judge ... they originally join politics ... to help the country ... then ONLY make their campaign plays ... to get that fruitful 2nd term ... which guarantess WE keep paying em ... till they pass
... stinks like rotten egg gas to me ... and how did that rule get in .... why they voted it in ... just for THEMSELVES |
|
By:
just look how upset people get about the carbon tax, seems pretty bloody obvious that people will do whatever they can to not pay it and the simplest way to do that is to reduce your energy use
ffs look what you wrote who in the hell likes paying more tax womble???? and do you seriously think even if we do reduce our usage that the cost wont go up to compensate lost revenue + THE CARBON TAX ITSELF to pay for misguided overspending governments?? i'm not for polluting but as been written here elsewhere get all the renewable energy schemes going and make it viable to use them instead of opening NEW coal mines all over the shop income tax must come down to compensate and then at least only the heavy users will be paying more NET tax overall whereas those that use the unavoidable minimum for the basic necessities dont pay more get the whole argument right before implementing otherwise we may as well do a big cut and paste for this thread transfer it to the tax tax tax and more tax thread |
|
By:
AP.
I'm expressing my view mate. Like it or lump it. If, in your view, its awash with political spin - fair enough -thats how you see it. Myself, I see the entire climate change agenda being very much DRIVEN by a political ideology. I hardly think I'm alone in asking some serious questions of the facts and figures that are on the table. The information hasn't exactly been straight and narrow over the past 12-18 months. And heaven forbid I question the integrity of a flawed taxation scheme which will in no way help the environment and deliver a brutal backhander to all Australian's and the economy. I very much doubt our children will thank us much for introducing an ineffectual tax on everything that is economically devastating and environmentally fruitles. [smiley:crazy] You call it "being caught up in political spin". I call it having a rigorous and open debate. Given the recent and continuous scientific bungles and scandals overseas, I am not surprised the climate change crusaders are left with labelling those that dare question them as INSANE. If we're going to address environmental concerns, pollution and drive forward with an overtaking focus on renewable energy - lets get it right. |
|
By:
just look how upset people get about the carbon tax, seems pretty bloody obvious that people will do whatever they can to not pay it and the simplest way to do that is to reduce your energy use
okey dokey - when Big Al Gore stops flying around in jets, and sells a couple of his energy munching carbon dioxide spewing houses, i'll think about it. Throw in all the other hypocrites - Dick Smith, Flannery, Bono, Sting, all those actors and celebs that jump on the band-wagon and then go home to their 3 acre homes and private jets... spare me. |
|
By:
fortunately political figures believed scientific opinion about the reaction between ozone and fluorocarbons and reacted accordingly in a global sense. Hopefully this belief won't be necessary with oxidation of oil products because, if we believe capitalist oil company spin, we're running out of it anyway. gaia.
|
|
By:
The denial debate in the most part is being driven by the religious right who choose to try and discredit the scientists in order to strengthen their own position in regard to the Evoloution / Creationism debate.
IMO.  |
|
By:
the kind people have a wonderful dream......
Julia on the guillotine |
|
By:
AFL
Thats pretty far fetched imo  I'm certainly NOT a right-wing religious man. |
|
By:
Very good post very
Maybe we should go back to lead paint because it was cheaper and that asbestos stuff surely isn't all that bad Pensioners and low income earners will be compensated, as they should be, and the tax on old polluting technology will drive investment in renewables to create new income streams It's not rocket science |
|
By:
wombleoz, you're waffling on about nothing.
I mean, dragging asbestos and lead paint into the frame? Relevence? Fair dinkum. Love to know what that has to do with the proposed implementation of an ineffectual tax on everything with no environmental benefit.Most of your posts have gone along the same lines - they're amazingly baseless - and honestly, some here say, I'm political - well let me fkn say, you wombleoz, are posting straight from you ideological handbook. I mean who says things like: "New taxes are all good "without a powerful social based ideology at play....  Oh and of course pensioners and low income earners will be compensated, all apart of wealth re-distribution isn't it? So please, enlighten us all on how and why a carbon tax will be so successful......I'm not after a moral crusade, we've heard it all before, along the lines of "whats wrong with helping the planet" or "think of the children". First tell us the honest economic consequences. Then the honest positive environmental dividends. Oh and if I wanted Julia Gillard or Bob Brown spin on this, I'd visit their respective websites - how about some honest reflection? Look forward to hearing from you. IMO, implementing a carbon tax scheme which hurts all Australian's and does nothing to help our environment or the various climate "causes" makes no sense. Taking action for taking action's sake and achieving what? Nothing. ffs[smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
The science used to say that cigarettes were bad for you. The tobacco companies swore black and blue that not only were they not bad for you but they had all these beneficial qualities. They rolled out their scientists.
Can you see anything similiar happening here. The only difference is that we dont kill off the smokers we kill our children and their children and then the whole of civilisation. As I said I dont know if this is a con but Im not willing to chance it. |
|
By:
Thats fine angelo.
Lets take your viewpoint. The planet is in serious trouble. Why address the problem with a carbon tax that's impact environmentally will be ZERO? |
|
By:
I think its fair to question whats on the table scientifically - considering the tribulations of the past year or so.
Plenty has been thrown into question. And again, its not just to be asking some serious questions. But again, lets say you are right. Lets say the science is saying this is not cyclical weather patterns and our environment is caving in due to the pollution. Why introduce an ineffectual tax on everything. With no environmental benefits. [smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
ffs.
That should of read. *Its not a minority asking the serious questions. |
|
By:
The tax may be ineffectual and it may do nothing for the environment. But what it will do is at the very least is encourage and foster a change of behaviour in people and hopefully business as well. So the tax should not be seen as the cure all but rather a first very small step down the path.
|
|
By:
it's the taxing part that stinks ... no one really disagrees with the rest i would venture to say ... what has TAXATION got to do with safety lol
|
|
By:
Now your starting to feel it Jez : Kudos to you[;)]
Jez Melb Punter Joined: 25 Oct 04 Replies: 3463 04 Dec 10 00:53 I think its fair to question whats on the table scientifically - considering the tribulations of the past year or so. Plenty has been thrown into question. And again, its not just to be asking some serious questions. But again, lets say you are right. Lets say the science is saying this is not cyclical weather patterns and our environment is caving in due to the pollution. Why introduce an ineffectual tax on everything. With no environmental benefits I agree with you about the tax...is going to f..k us all.... Parliment and Scientists need to find a way to replace energy settings into renewable and significantly reduce coal and oil...and at the same time win the blatant propagnda wars of the big miners and big oil... Cast your mind to the mining ads ...absolute lies...but propaganda won the day. The mentioning of Asbetos etc I would say was to draw parrallels that big companies will lie to make(and protect) a buck...which has happened in numerous industries and from captains of buisness IMO Scientists find the energy solution ...parliment legislate the settings |
|
By:
The mention of asbestos and lead based paints was along the lines of Very's mention of the banning of floro carbons - when something is bad you ban the use of it if you can, that's a good thing. We can't ban pollution so we need to do something else to reduce it and the most obvious is to tax it to make it more expensive and to drive change.
People need a driver to make change, price is the one that most will respond to How well it work etc is a wait and see, how much it will cost is the same - but we have to do something |
|
By:
on that basis then womble ... it ain't a taxation ... it's more like a fine ...
has julia indicated that every penny of the proposed 'taxation' will go towards renewable energy or fixing the climate cause if the 'tax' just goes back into general revenue ... then it's just a opportunistic tax ... to prop up a broke govt (again) |
|
By:
fine / tax - does it really matter what you call it? money will go to consolidated revenue, as it should. the hope will be that the impost of it will encourage industry to invest in cleaner alternatives
the government is far from broke btw, they are rolling along just fine but we do need new revenue streams to pay for an aging population |
|
By:
seems purely an opportunistic tax to me ...
and by the time the climate has a real impact issue ... the scientists will have found/created a bacteria they can release into the atmosphere ... that will cleanse the problem totally from the face of our world of course the bacteria will have extremely bad side-effects ... any non-gambler or rorting public office individual and/or politician .. will be severley limited in their ability to conduct their job ... and will be sacked with no 'after-job' benefits surprisngly all gamblers will have re-newed energy and optimism ... and in their droves will fully fund .. thru the punting levies ... all the monies required to alleviate the ills of this world ... i have no (well little) doubt |
|
By:
Jez is a bit of a bug at times, maybe he can help develop it Thebas
good luck with that one |
|
By:
lol mate good luck today
|
|
By:
u 2 - hope you clean up (cleaning up is a good thing)
|
|
By:
Wombleozfine / tax - does it really matter what you call it? money will go to consolidated revenue, as it should. the hope will be that the impost of it will encourage industry to invest in cleaner alternatives the government is far from broke btw, they are rolling along just fine but we do need new revenue streams to pay for an aging population Have a good think your first paragraph there wombleoz. Anyone wants a reason for my passion and anger about this tax - it is all answered in this post from wombleoz. You are on the right track thebas. The more you start to think about this entire carbon tax scheme, the more becomes an ideological money-spinner with the convenient cause being climate change. Yes I am critical of the science. And as I've said, with good cause over the recent 12-18 months. But I also have children to which I ponder their future and I also want to nuture and protect our environment. The bottom line remains that this is a tax that will fkn pummel jobs, families, the economy and the country - and its purpose is to somehow, in someway, maybe, we fkn wish, hope & pray will convince the big end of town to change its ways. Wombleoz and his fellow watermelons say: "How well it work etc is a wait and see, how much it will cost is the same - but we have to do something" My point again - so we take action, for actions sake. We have to do something, so lets....Mmmmmm, thinks the Leftwing. Lets introduce a great big NEW tax on EVERYTHING. So this is a "fingers crossed" exercise, with no reprieve for the environment and a gigantic backhander for Australians - but hey, its very easy to gleefully ponder the socialist opportunities from this revenue whilst you sit back and sip lattes all fkn day on Toorak Road, isn't it wombleoz? wombleoz crows that "everything is just fine ".Same sort of mantra NSW Labor rolled out about 8 years ago - look where they are now - on their fkn knees. Isn't it heart warming to know though, that if this hope-filled tax will fill the coffers for the Federal Labor Government that has already over 3 years, managed to waste billions, accrue billions of debt and preside over a litany of monumental project-disasters. |
|
By:
I'll need to stop using Malcolm Turnbull's arguments - sorry Jez
It's not only left wingers that are calling for a price and action I thought Canberra Bookie had retired??? |
|
By:
imo there cannot be a one solution fits all, have to take into account how economies operate and the context of markets
liberal market economies such as US UK AUS will have firms that fight regulators and don't cooperate with govt. they are looking after share holders by maximising efficiency and profits, so to modify their behaviour you need to affect the price signal as this is what firms will respond to, so tax/quota/tariffs whatever - production that is environmentally damaging and lower taxes from other areas for firms, firms will not loose their efficiency due to the other tax reduction but will innovate towards 'cleaner' production because they can increase their efficiency and increase shareholder returns by receiving the double dividend assuming of course no market failures or innovation to shift firms out of the reach of regulation |
|
By:
Sorry. Need to use the account from time to time wombleoz.
Anyhow, the point wombleoz is a price does not equate to action. Thats what you conveniently avoid in every post. Time and time again. You play the man, not the ball. Which is to be expected from left wing extremists. Bring up Malcolm Turnbull as much as you like. Liberals don't agree on everything. And as I've said before, Liberals ARE able to cross the floor unlike Labor, whose members are expelled for this sort of behaviour. You can continue to quote politicians or Al Gore for that matter. This is an ineffectual tax on everything with zero environmental benefit. You flob off this argument with talk of revenue for an ageing population, etc. I mean fair dinkum..... Is this about "climate change" or sourcing new revenue or wealth re-distribution? You cry "oh but we must do something" - and that I agree with, as I've said, I'm all for the nurturing and protection of the environment....... But surely, SURELY we can do better than implement a wish'n, hope'n and pray'n tax, which is flawed in every sense and completely INEFFECTUAL and will hurt jobs, families, the economy and the country. |
|
By:
SO let me get this straight Jez, if the carbon tax comes in and increases the price of power you won't change your usage at all???
I think many will The price increases will trigger changes and speed up the move to renewaables, capitalism at it's best |