Thread: Carbon Tax. Well someone had to bring it up!

Originally Posted by Chucaro

And Australia is number List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia per capita just behind USA and Canada is number 13.
Argentina is number 85 and Brasil 124. We have to do a lot of work to be more reponsable

By the way China is number 80 so just imagine if the people in China start producing the same emissions than as

These figures are misleading. Also included in Australian CO2 emissions is the coal we export overseas to places like China. Does China's CO2 output include the millions of products they produce and send to Australia? I doubt it.

Terry as I understand it, one of the big problems that we have is the use of coal to produce our power. Personally, I think that we should do our bit as should everybody and even if our impact is minimal it is still being a part of the global change in culture with regards to emissions. If everybody looks at the US, China and India (or whoever) and say well, if they're not then why should we bother, and the big polluters are looking out and saying why should we do anything if they're not.... But based on the per capita, irrespective if we are the worst or 4th worst in the world, we still need to be questioning the way we do things.

Itsnotworthcomplaining says:
milk and hamburgers will end up costing a lot more, cows fart a lot of methane, so the dairy and beef industry will have to pay.

My understanding so far is,
As Australia is a primary producing exporter, The Ranga does not want to be booted, they must exclude the farming sector from carbon tax due to the credits scheme where the farmer can plant trees, besides, do the man hours calculation for head of cattle, gas generated, "organic fertiliser" created, re-growth of vegetation in said area, are the cows growing big or fattening up.
On top of all that, i do not think they could get enough workers to watch the grass grow and measure each blade.

I had this discussion with an accountant a few weeks ago, he has a hobby farm and a self professed maths geek.
His (paraphrased) answer to carbon tax and farming, "Errrr the calculations are too complex that not even the government would bother attempting it. Those tree hugging greens on the other hand. would want to stick a meter in your **s to charge you for every particle, so long as your not one of those vegetarians"

Originally Posted by subasurf

I guess you missed the part where he said lowest point in AUSTRALIA.
Australia and Antarctica are two difference places...in case you didn't realise.

If you think the Australia Antarctic Territory counts then you're clearly splitting hairs and trolling

I use Australia in a political and legal sense, and therefore include the Australian Antarctic Territory, along with Christmas Island, Australian Coral Sea Territory, etc., and including Queensland's Saibai Island which is only 4 km from the Western Provence of PNG. If you are using Australia in a geographic sense Tasmania is not part of Australia. Indeed people often refer to the Australian mainland and Tasmania. I would have agreed with you if you had said the Australian mainland.

And of course both of us are ignoring those parts of Australia that are actually under the sea. I would include as part of Australia, the sea-bed out to the 200 nautical mile limit, or to the edge of the Continental Shelf, which ever is greater. None of this is trivial, though we both speak with tongue in cheek.

Cheers
KarlB

PS I did like your "heavier than eyre "!

Originally Posted by It'sNotWorthComplaining!

milk and hamburgers will end up costing a lot more, cows fart a lot of methane, so the dairy and beef industry will have to pay.

Farmers will be paying anyway weather or not agriculture is included directly. Food, fuel, oils, parts, feed, electricity and a myriad other things I've left out will go up and because of the land value I doubt many will be getting any sort of benefits. Then they want directly include ag into the tax, adding yet another cost onto farmers, all of which CANNOT be passed on to consumers, as most farmers CANNOT set their own prices.

The only benefit to may be that farmers will be payed for having x amount of trees and scrubland on their properties and simply leave the place to its own devices. However, because it will be more profitable to have trees on a farm and not livestock or machinery where's our food going to come from?

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Terry as I understand it, one of the big problems that we have is the use of coal to produce our power. Personally, I think that we should do our bit as should everybody and even if our impact is minimal it is still being a part of the global change in culture with regards to emissions. If everybody looks at the US, China and India (or whoever) and say well, if they're not then why should we bother, and the big polluters are looking out and saying why should we do anything if they're not.... But based on the per capita, irrespective if we are the worst or 4th worst in the world, we still need to be questioning the way we do things.

I actually agree Slunnie, the world can't go on using up finite resources with an every increasing population but why should we be just about the first to pay and disadvantage our economy? There needs to be a better system put in place and this one being looked at by the Coalition Government seams to be rather complicated and messy.

One other thing, this system is based on CO2 being costed / taxed at $23 a ton and that amount rising each year until we have a carbon trading scheme. In Europe where they have a proper carbon trading scheme in place carbon is selling for around $12 a ton from memory.

Why is our carbon being taxed higher then what the free market values it at?

Why are we paying much more then most of the rest of the world?

cheers,
Terry

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

I take your point, in my growing up, can you educate me which manufacturing industry will be increasing it's workforce by hundreds if not thousands of employees because of this carbon tax?

We cant suggest solar because the Chinese now make solar panels using UNSW developed technology, wind is out because we no longer have the expertise in manufacture of electric motors sufficient to compete with people like Siemens, nor the skills to manufacture the airfoils. Household appliances are out because even Fisher & Paykel now manufacture in Thailand and not Oz.

Diana

The thought that industries that have gone overseas years ago has got anything to do with the carbon tax is about as logical as blaming the the death of my dog on the carbon tax.

Mate if I knew what industries were going to be the winners I'd be investing in them and telling you would be the last of my worries.

The doom and gloom over the carbon tax is no different to that associated with every other change. Opportunities for those that are prepared to accept the change and make the most of it and extinction for all that still want to make buggy wheels and provide hay and stables because they don't want to accept change.

Originally Posted by Graz

These figures are misleading. Also included in Australian CO2 emissions is the coal we export overseas to places like China. Does China's CO2 output include the millions of products they produce and send to Australia? I doubt it.

Well they are from lEA, Energy Balances of OECD Countries, are you going to go by Mr Abbott sources?
We have to admit that we have to good here and we do not like to give up just a fraction of our standard of living for the good of our grandchildren. It is a shame