Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Long Live HFC]

Right so you trust Wong when she was in power, now you trust Greg Hunt despite the parties having completely different policies

nope. it's like you can't read or something. i said i expect governments to make these decisions on my behalf, not that i think any particular minister or government has done a reasonable job or that i agree with their position. you partisan *******s are all the same lol. stupid strawmanning with shitty understanding.

 

[awaremind]

let's worry about that in a few thousand years.

In the mean time lets sell our resources at a profit; collect the corporate tax, payroll tax, the GST, the mining royalties, the rates and shire taxes, the franking deficits taxes, the WHT, the CGT all whilst providing employment directly and indirectly and letting the mining companies build roads, power stations, desal plants, railways and port infrastructure and providing the indigenous groups 1-2% of revenues, employment, health and education opportunities.

Or we can not sell it and protect it by force.


I guess it comes down to the practical question of whether Australians are more deserving of the earth's resources than others. Some would see we are on this planet together and should co-operate. Others see themselves as privileged and superior.

How much are the royalties? they could be increased depending on the impact on the environment.

 

[Power Raid]

How much are the royalties? they could be increased depending on the impact on the environment.

royalties are revenue based but equate to 10% of the profit whether the product is processed or unprocessed
indigenous royalties are about half that

so all up around 15% of profit.

and yes, the environmental bonds already consider the environmental impact. so a different and more appropriate mechanism is in place. You want the bonds as an upfront deposit rather than in the never never.

 

[awaremind]

that's certainly one way of choosing to look at it.

The other would be to say, we could achieve more if we were positive and had objectives. A carbon tax simply can not work unless it is jurisdiction focused. After all how can it work if it is not tailored to promote an identified solution? Unless of course it was just about buying votes by being seen to be doing something and collecting revenues.

I also don't see the obsession with CO2, as all pollution should be reduced where possible.

I also don't see the value of exporting our pollution as the carbon tax has already achieved and can not be unwound. Worse, the pollution we have exported will be repaid to planet earth with interest as industry has shifted to higher polluting nations.

but hey some people simply aren't into common sense or achieving objectives. Some are just satisfied with a clumsy tax.

I agree with the focused jurisdiction thing, things should always be adapted as well as possible to the situation at hand, that was probably one of the biggest mistakes of Rudd's cash splashing.

 

[pokerspiv]

Not sure if trolling or stupid.

Comments like this are the very definition of trolling. No attempt to make an argument, just a personal attack.

 

[pokerspiv]

Take the carbon tax. By any standard it's clearly the best policy to tackle climate change we've ever implemented..

The science is in no way "settled" on this issue. That's what you keep getting confused about. Many economists would argue otherwise.

 

[awaremind]

royalties are revenue based but equate to 10% of the profit whether the product is processed or unprocessed
indigenous royalties are about half that

so all up around 15% of profit.

and yes, the environmental bonds already consider the environmental impact. so a different and more appropriate mechanism is in place. You want the bonds as an upfront deposit rather than in the never never.

I think that big business that exploits natural resources should be rather more heavily taxed than this, on the condition the money raised goes towards nurturing a more sustainable and economically diverse economy.

 

[pokerspiv]

Perfect? No. But up until it was removed it was doing everything we'd want that sort of policy to do with very few negatives.

It was doing absolutely nothing to prevent climate change. But you're right, it was doing what Labor wanted it to do: raise revenue.

 

[Power Raid]

I think that big business that exploits natural resources should be rather more heavily taxed than this, on the condition the money raised goes towards nurturing a more sustainable and economically diverse economy.

they are

add to that 30% corporate tax
GST
Shire rates and taxes
fuel tax for on road use
stamp duty for buying the asset (7%)
payroll tax

they also build schools, health centres and other community service centres

then the investor pays
15% franking tax deficits


what tax rate as a whole should they pay in your opinion?

 

[awaremind]

Comments like this are the very definition of trolling. No attempt to make an argument, just a personal attack.

At this stage you were ignoring the quite strong argument we were making and it was frustrating, that was legitimately how I felt about that. If you are going to be rude to others thicken up your own skin.

 

[pokerspiv]

At this stage you were ignoring the quite strong argument we were making and it was frustrating, that was legitimately how I felt about that. If you are going to be rude to others thicken up your own skin.

I have not been rude to anyone. You are just taking it personally that people don't automatically accept all your assertions.

I was not ignoring your argument, I was arguing against it, and that is what you are upset about.

 

[awaremind]

they are

add to that 30% corporate tax
GST
Shire rates and taxes
fuel tax for on road use
stamp duty for buying the asset (7%)
payroll tax

they also build schools, health centres and other community service centres

then the investor pays
15% franking tax deficits


what tax rate as a whole should they pay in your opinion?

All of that like anyone else, plus a price dependent on emissions of carbon.

 

[awaremind]

I have not been rude to anyone. You are just taking it personally that people don't automatically accept all your assertions.

Ha ha no I'm not bothered.
If I'm not making sense I accept responsibility
I was just not sure if you were actually serious. It just seemed like you train of thought was so nonsensical. I'm sorry.

 

[awaremind]

You seemed to be arguing that 2 years of a carbon tax would be expected to have actually had an an effect on global climate, ridiculous.

 

[Taylor]

Two hundred years wouldn't have had an effect on global climate. AUS is too small.

 

[awaremind]

Two hundred years wouldn't have had an effect on global climate. AUS is too small.

This is true, but everyone has to get on board, like a team. lol. And the money should be especially set aside to achieve objectives.

 

[pokerspiv]

This is true, but everyone has to get on board, like a team. lol.

But they didn't. So what was the point?

 

[Taylor]

If the world is a team on global warming then China is Michael Jordan in his prime, Australia is a five year old boy.

Not so much of a team as we get to play the game the world chooses and the result isn't influenced by us.

We are Andy Lee at the Melb Stars.

 

[pokerspiv]

You seemed to be arguing that 2 years of a carbon tax would be expected to have actually had an an effect on global climate, ridiculous.

You're the one who seems to be arguing that a tax will have an effect on global climate. I am arguing that it will not.

 

[awaremind]

But they didn't. So what was the point?

Politicians are idiots. Big business has powerful lobbies. It takes more than one conference every 5 years or so to get stuff done.

 

[medusala]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31601122

The head of the UN climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.

 

[awaremind]

You're the one who seems to be arguing that a tax will have an effect on global climate. I am arguing that it will not.

Nor should be expected to in the short term. Thats like planting and orange seed and asking why there are no oranges next week.
However the tax should ideally both modify behavior, and help fund implementation of the many, already developed technologies that can transform our power supply, agriculture and transport.

 

[pokerspiv]

As if any revenue is going to be spent on technological R+D.

It's going to go into general revenue like every other tax.

The tax will do nothing to combat climate change. Climate change is, however, a very good excuse to levy new taxes, which is what every government ever has always wanted to do.

The fact that they've managed to get close to half the population to actively cheer them on in taking their money is just proof of how gullible people can be.

 

[awaremind]

If the world is a team on global warming then China is Michael Jordan in his prime, Australia is a five year old boy.

Not so much of a team as we get to play the game the world chooses and the result isn't influenced by us.

We are Andy Lee at the Melb Stars.

No we are Tony Abbot and his team. And they are who they choose to be. People like like Murdoch and Gina have not let being Australian hamper them from being a player on the world stage, nor has Abbott either when it comes to certain Countries and insulting their leaders, think of powerful Indonesia and Russia. We are leaders there. Why can't we step forward and say we will do it because it is the best thing to do. Pointing to the failures of others as the reason for your own failure is petty. And other countries are making substantial moves in the right direction.

 

[awaremind]

As if any revenue is going to be spent on technological R+D.

It's going to go into general revenue like every other tax.

The tax will do nothing to combat climate change. Climate change is, however, a very good excuse to levy new taxes, which is what every government ever has always wanted to do.

The fact that they've managed to get close to half the population to actively cheer them on in taking their money is just proof of how gullible people can be.

Thats pretty cynical, and if you deny humans contribution to climate change that puts you on the fringe.