Carbon Pricing (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

Do you support carbon pricing?

 

[sophia711]

Why not just directly regulate carbon pollution as you would any other pollution?

You don't have a pollution tax or market giving the right to pollute waterways. They didn't put a price on asbestos to phase it out when they realised that was dangerous.

 

[SylviaB]

It's a tax, stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Lentern]

It's a tax, stop pretending otherwise.

I don't believe I said it wasn't a tax.

 

[Arcorn]

Gillard admitted that it was just an income redistribution scheme.

Source: interview with the 7:30 report on Sunday.

 

[Rafy]

#Newspoll Price on Carbon: Support 30 (0) Opposed 59 (-1) #auspol #qanda #CarbonTax


#Newspoll 2 Party Preferred: ALP 42 (-3) L/NP 58 (+3) #auspol #qanda
#Newspoll Primary Votes: ALP 27 (-3) L/NP 49 (+3) GRN 12 (+1) #auspol #qanda

 

[Lentern]

#Newspoll Price on Carbon: Support 30 (0) Opposed 59 (-1) #auspol #qanda #CarbonTax


#Newspoll 2 Party Preferred: ALP 42 (-3) L/NP 58 (+3) #auspol #qanda
#Newspoll Primary Votes: ALP 27 (-3) L/NP 49 (+3) GRN 12 (+1) #auspol #qanda

The actual question, if we're reading the same poll was:
THINKING NOW ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PLAN TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON. BASED ON WHAT YOU MAY KNOW ABOUT IT, ARE YOU PERSONALLY IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S CURRENT PROPOSAL TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON?

Not really the same as asking about the general principle of pricing carbon.

 

[Rafy]

The actual question, if we're reading the same poll was:
THINKING NOW ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PLAN TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON. BASED ON WHAT YOU MAY KNOW ABOUT IT, ARE YOU PERSONALLY IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S CURRENT PROPOSAL TO PUT A PRICE ON CARBON?

Not really the same as asking about the general principle of pricing carbon.

It's from tomorrow's Newspoll.

 

[Lentern]

It's from tomorrow's Newspoll.

and does said newspoll have an actual question on it?

 

[Arcorn]

and does said newspoll have an actual question on it?

Don't these things just have how people would vote based on current situations?

 

[Lentern]

Don't these things just have how people would vote based on current situations?

They ask questions like the one I copied above.

 

[Aquawhite]

and does said newspoll have an actual question on it?

+1

 

[Blastus]

Newspoll has questions mate

 

[Garygaz]

income redistribution is okay to an extent but for fucks sake, it's pretty much an elephant in the room for this whole carbon tax.

the only way i would ever support this scheme would be if there was some kind of world wide agreement like kyoto, so we're not going it alone and hence achieving absolutely nothing.

 

[fakermaker]

Oh, look at that...another BOS poll that is completely dominated by conservative bullshit...how original.

Let's get the facts straight:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html
"Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax," warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. "Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living."

So firstly, if your making 110k+ and cant afford an extra 9.90 in the possible progression to cleaner energy, you can go fuck yourself!

http://www.celsias.com/article/australias-long-awaited-carbon-tax-details-finally/
"Initially the tax will only hit about 500 companies.

About 60% of Australia’s carbon pollution will be covered. The tax will not apply to agriculture. Agriculture is about 16% of Australian emissions. It will also not apply to petrol or light on road vehicles. Transport fuel is excluded but heavy transport will start paying carbon tax in 2014"

For the time being at least, you dont have to worry about shit...The top 500 businesses will lose money, or be forced to clean your air.

Also, it isnt even really a tax, but rather a governmental scheme to get companies to switch to (and fund) cleaner energy systems such as nuclear.

Think about it like this:

Bob owns a business. He makes 1mill profit a year. Since coal and uranium is so abundant in Aus, he gets it dirt cheap and thus, relies heavily on it. Govt says: "Bob, your using too much resources, omitting too much CO2, and making too much money...this year you'll only make $700k, we'll keep the 300k as a penalty".

Bob is accustomed to his current 1mill lifestyle and is like, fuck that shit...He decides to increase his costs by 10%, hoping to increase his profits. Customs stop buying his shit and Bob starts losing money. Bob then realizes, that he can make more money by using the more expensive Nuclear or renewable energies, if it means that the government will fuck off. Thus Bob invests his money in these alternative energies. Meanwhile, the government has been receiving a tidy little profit from their tax and decide to invest in the development of new energy systems.

Now while the development of and migration to these new industries is depicted by the media as something to be scared of...They will inevitably create new jobs for the development, construction, maintenance, etc...

Hence, the entire scheme is a fucking win for everyone.

Btw, inb4 labour/greens hate...here's a video of Abbott talking about a tax on carbon in 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

retards,
fakermaker

 

[Lentern]

income redistribution is okay to an extent but for fucks sake, it's pretty much an elephant in the room for this whole carbon tax.

the only way i would ever support this scheme would be if there was some kind of world wide agreement like kyoto, so we're not going it alone and hence achieving absolutely nothing.

Didn't ask about this scheme or any particular scheme, just the general principle of carbon pricing.

 

[SylviaB]

democracy when it suits my postion amrite lentern??!?!

 

[Lentern]

democracy when it suits my postion amrite lentern??!?!

Oh Sylvester, you're never right.

 

[SylviaB]

except always

 

[Lentern]

except always

Just not when you express those things in any form of communication.