Carbon Tax

[Rusty]

Arg! This old theory again.

Turnbull will not challenge for the Lib leadership, he wouldn't win, he wouldn't even come close. His problem is that he is the leader that Labor voters love, but wouldn't vote for anyway - that and like it or not everything Abbott has done has been a huge success so far (Politically of course)

As much as I hate to say it Turnbull is a politician from another era, one where the two parties were very similar and governed from the center of the political spectrum. The future is a divided country, with an extreme Labor party and a corresponding more extreme coalition. This is the result that has been thrust upon us by the rising number of young people who voted greens at the last few elections, and consequently can be blamed on the Labor parties inability to connect with their membership.

We are for better or worse growing into a country with a US style presidential flavored system. Look at it now, we have independents saying their loyalty is to Gillard and not to the Labor party - this in a parliamentary system.

 

[CussCuss]

Abbott is unpopular and a goose to boot. Turnbull is by far more appealing to swing/middle voters, he is far more intelligent and the things that he actually agrees on but can't say would take him into the lead.

There is no way any liberal supporter would go and vote for labor if turnbull was in, they would lose sfa votes in that respect, but they would gain a massive amount from swing voters just because he wouldnt be saying no to every little thing (e.g. NBN, ETS).

If turnbull was the liberal leader last election, they would have won.

 

[Rex]

Take away short-term selfish greed, and the decision on a price on carbon is a no-brainer. If you pollute, you pay for the problem you generate, the pollution. And if you don't pollute, you get a discount. The problem is people or nations who pollute, causing problems for others, but are unprepared to compensate for the pollution they create.

So the bigger issue is not so much pollution, it is short-term selfish greed.

In a deficiency mindset, no amount of money is EVER enough. Greed runs rampant. If it was enough, then News of the World type ethical scenarios would not happen. People who whinge about the tax they pay on amounts over $150k need to get a life, they are stuck in a deficiency mindset. Miserable in nature generates miserable in life. The vast majority of people in Australia live in privilege like royalty compared to past generations, and compared to the living conditions of the overwhelming population of the world. And we live that way partly because of our reckless disregard for the problems we impose on others. And we then complain it is not enough?

A generous spirit has rewards that money could never buy.

The big question with our position on the carbon tax is not whether we have an extra $5 in our wallet or not, spent on meaningless rubbish, but what world are we leaving for our children, and for their children. On our death beds will they thank us or curse us for what we did to them?

 

[tookey]

Take away short-term selfish greed, and the decision on a price on carbon is a no-brainer. If you pollute, you pay for the problem you generate, the pollution. And if you don't pollute, you get a discount. The problem is people or nations who pollute, causing problems for others, but are unprepared to compensate for the pollution they create.

So the bigger issue is not so much pollution, it is short-term selfish greed.

In a deficiency mindset, no amount of money is EVER enough. Greed runs rampant. If it was enough, then News of the World type ethical scenarios would not happen. People who whinge about the tax they pay on amounts over $150k need to get a life, they are stuck in a deficiency mindset. Miserable in nature generates miserable in life. The vast majority of people in Australia live in privilege like royalty compared to past generations, and compared to the living conditions of the overwhelming population of the world. And we live that way partly because of our reckless disregard for the problems we impose on others. And we then complain it is not enough?

A generous spirit has rewards that money could never buy.

The big question with our position on the carbon tax is not whether we have an extra $5 in our wallet or not, spent on meaningless rubbish, but what world are we leaving for our children, and for their children. On our death beds will they thank us or curse us for what we did to them?

No matter what australia does it won't make one bit of difference to anything other than we will pay more in tax.

 

[Fluffy]

we should also take up whaling, using asbestos etc as it wont make a difference compared to the total in the world.

 

[The Gronk]

The 'we're too small to matter' argument is laughable really. Read up on the history of the formation of Israel. The UN vote would never have gotten up if it wasn't for Australia.

Australia made big money by being involved in the technology that usurped CFCs when the ozone layer issue was at its worst.

Having a price on carbon will encourage us to develop similar technologies for lowering CO2 usage. We all know eventually all countries will lower carbon usage, so why shouldn't we be selling the solutions rather than paying someone else for them?

What I also don't get is how anyone can support Abbott's plan - it costs heaps more to supposedly do the same thing.

 

[Rex]

Abbott doesn't have a positive bone in his body. He knows how to gutter attack. That's it. Great opposition leader when all he has to do is point fingers. Heaven help us if he ever becomes PM.

 

[codewana]

The 'we're too small to matter' argument is laughable really. Read up on the history of the formation of Israel. The UN vote would never have gotten up if it wasn't for Australia.

This is pertinent how?

 

[tookey]

we should also take up whaling, using asbestos etc as it wont make a difference compared to the total in the world.

My point exactly Gav. We stopped whaling and so did most other nations. Japan doesn't give a crap what we or any other nation say or do as they still keep killing whales. We stopped mining asbestos because we know that it kills people so why don't we be the first country to ban cigarettes because they also kill more people than asbestos every did/will?

The same with China and the US. They couldn't care less that if we stop mining and exporting coal and reduce our carbon emmisions to nil. They will still do what they want to do and increase their carbon emissions and which will increase world emissions by far more than what we are cutting ours by.

Numerous reports have said that China is going to increase their carbon emisions by 3 million tonnes betwen now and 2010. Our 160,000 tonne reduction in the same period means nothing.

I am not real bright so maybe an ironstine can explain to me exactly how much the temperature will decrease by because we are cutting our emissions down. Or explain exactly what beneficial effect it will have on our weather.

And while you are at it please also explain why we are decreasing our emisions (but our emisisons will still increase from what they are today) while at the same time increasing our exports of coal to anyone who will buy it? Should we just not close down the coal industry?

 

[Technical Coach]

we should also take up whaling, using asbestos etc as it wont make a difference compared to the total in the world.

My point exactly Gav. We stopped whaling and so did most other nations. Japan doesn't give a crap what we or any other nation say or do as they still keep killing whales. We stopped mining asbestos because we know that it kills people so why don't we be the first country to ban cigarettes because they also kill more people than asbestos every did/will?

The same with China and the US. They couldn't care less that if we stop mining and exporting coal and reduce our carbon emmisions to nil. They will still do what they want to do and increase their carbon emissions and which will increase world emissions by far more than what we are cutting ours by.

Numerous reports have said that China is going to increase their carbon emisions by 3 million tonnes betwen now and 2010. Our 160,000 tonne reduction in the same period means nothing.

I am not real bright so maybe an ironstine can explain to me exactly how much the temperature will decrease by because we are cutting our emissions down. Or explain exactly what beneficial effect it will have on our weather.

And while you are at it please also explain why we are decreasing our emisions (but our emisisons will still increase from what they are today) while at the same time increasing our exports of coal to anyone who will buy it? Should we just not close down the coal industry?

Reducing emissions is secondary to the prime concern---its about moving our economy into the next growth areas for future job growth and also minimizing inflationary effects that will be caused through supply and demand pressures on fossil fuels from the extra 2Billion uses from India and China.

Everyone is complaining about the increases in fuel costs well that is the future in all forms of energy resources----this is not about the environment the environment benefits from our need to find "eventually" cheaper forms of power to maintain our disposable incomes and living standards.

The Libs are just dumbing the debate down into no reduction of emissions which is true but not the end game.

 

[bob dylan]

Abbotts Green Army of 15000 people to plant 20 million trees is absolutely mind boggling.

Anyone see Joke Cockey trying to sell this on Lateline last night. He was trying to promote something he doesn't believe in.

 

[tookey]

At least it would give the unemployed something to do.

 

[Fluffy]

i noticed that China have now started paying consultants for reports on a carbon trading scheme due to the western countries all heading down the same road.

goto worry that the Chinese are ahead of Abbott