NSW Election
- Thread starter Berkeley_Eagle
- Start date
people may not know the nuts and bolts Gronk, but they know one thing, it is going to mean more out of their pockets, and you can't honestly promise that this will not be the case can you?
I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of the whole situation, but the Shazas and Bazzas in the Suburbs will only care about what it will cost them.
I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of the whole situation, but the Shazas and Bazzas in the Suburbs will only care about what it will cost them.
My point is that it is different politically between what might happen and what's already happened. Europe's had one in place for 10 years after all.Â
Abbott will look out of touch to be bleating about climate change not existing when a scheme has been in for a couple of years and there is evidence of new industries starting up because of it.Â
Abbott will look out of touch to be bleating about climate change not existing when a scheme has been in for a couple of years and there is evidence of new industries starting up because of it.Â
Matabele
Journey Man
It's not just Alan Jones pulling down the pants on the climate change fundametalists:
Eight myths of a carbon tax
Tony Shepherd From: The Australian April 01, 2011 12:00AM 31
There are questions about the science but, as Rupert Murdoch put it, the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of myths about a carbon tax.
1. The greatest myth is that if we lead the world in carbon pricing the rest of the world will follow. We produce 1.5 per cent of the world's CO2; China and America account for 40 per cent. A 5 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions would be cancelled out by as little as a 0.3 per cent increase in China's emissions.
2. Another myth is that we have to lead the world because we are a carbon-based economy and will be more affected when and if the world introduces carbon pricing. Our carbon-based economy is one of our main competitive advantages. To lead on a carbon tax puts our industry at a serious disadvantage against our competitors.
Eighty per cent of power is generated from coal. This low-cost power has underpinned our standard of living by encouraging manufacture and giving low-cost electricity to consumers.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
A carbon tax on imports from countries without CO2 pricing is unworkable. We would need to significantly increase the Customs Department and we would still be at risk. Such a move would undo the hard won reforms of the 1990s.
3. Another myth says if we introduce the tax now it will give industry time to adapt. Industry needs years to make the investment to meet the new environment. Planning approval alone can take four or more years. The logic of starting a carbon tax in barely 12 months' time has not been thought through; five years would barely be enough.
It would be better to advise industry that CO2 will be taxed at about $50/$60 a tonne in 10 years' time when our trading partners also start to price carbon and industry should start to adjust its long term capital plans and debt financing accordingly.
The rise in the cost of fossil fuels is already affecting local prices. We must be careful not to hit the domestic and business consumer with a double whammy. If the domestic price for gas continues to rise the price for CO2 will have to rise further to force the change from coal to gas generation.
4. Another myth is that Big Business should have known a carbon tax was coming and should have been prepared. Most of our coal-fired power stations were built and owned by state governments. The taxpayer is the largest single owner with 36 per cent capacity overall, 54 per cent in NSW and 67 per cent in Queensland.
The recent sale in NSW was at a deep discount to the replacement value because of the threat of carbon pricing; NSW taxpayers virtually lost their equity on the threat of a tax.
In Victoria power stations were sold at huge prices largely to foreign investors expecting a proper electricity market that never eventuated. The owners invested in good faith with the reasonable expectation that if a price were put on CO2 they would be given adequate notice and compensation.
Indeed, CO2 trading in Europe, the obvious precedent scheme, was accompanied by the issue of close to 100 per cent free permits to the power generators for the first decade. If we can purchase permits globally as planned why not adopt common measures with the EU?
To say to government and private investors that the federal government will wipe out your equity without compensation is patently unfair. It will introduce a dangerous level of sovereign risk for long-term investment in Australia.
5. Then there is the myth that we are morally obliged to lead the way because we generate a larger proportion of carbon dioxide a head of population. Yes we do, but there are good reasons for this. We are rich in resources such as coal, iron ore, bauxite and uranium. It gives us one of our few competitive advantages.
We also have a significant agricultural sector and are a large exporter of beef and lamb, which are high CO2 emitters. Given the size of the country, our transport consumption is higher than more densely settled economies.
Exports contribute to more than 30 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions. If we want to cut emissions sharply, should we just stop exporting?
6. Closer to home is the myth that the carbon tax will hit the so called 1000 big polluters and consumers will be protected. In the end the consumer, whether local or overseas, will always pay. If the cost is not passed on, trade exposed industry in particular will either fail to survive (and jobs will be lost), or move elsewhere (loss of jobs again).
The other illogicality in this myth is that the consumer should be protected. If the government wishes to discourage the production of CO2 then the end consumer must be sent a price signal.
The concept of charging the big emitters and passing the proceeds back to the consumer is fatally flawed. The big emitters will reduce emissions or be forced out of the economy. Then there will be no money for compensation and the shock will be large.
7. Then there is the myth that renewable energy can replace coal and gas-fired energy production without a substantial cost to the consumer or business.
Putting aside the serious issues of reliability, availability and transmission, the cost of all of the available renewables, such as wind, is far higher than coal.
8. And then there is the myth that a carbon tax or ETS will force the same big polluters to invest in alternative technologies that will create jobs. The expectation that investors who have seen their investment seriously impaired by a carbon tax will race to invest in new high-cost technologies is illogical. Banks won't lend to the impaired incumbents.
Where is the plan for what Australia will look like in 2020 or 2030? Will we still have an aluminium or steel industry or any form of processing requiring energy such as food or an agricultural sector?
California legislated to introduce a cap and trade scheme in 2006, with effect from 2012. There has been no explosion in green jobs there and unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent. Jobs have simply moved across state borders.
Global emissions are a global problem. A global solution is the only answer. If we reduce our carbon emissions unilaterally there will be no benefit to the global environment.
What is the negotiation benefit of giving away our hand now, when we should be seeking to agree an emissions trajectory for Australia as part of a global deal?
This is a momentous decision and we appear to be relying on a business and investment community that we are proposing to punish. A cross your fingers approach is just not good enough when we are considering the very basis of our economic future.
Eight myths of a carbon tax
Tony Shepherd From: The Australian April 01, 2011 12:00AM 31
There are questions about the science but, as Rupert Murdoch put it, the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of myths about a carbon tax.
1. The greatest myth is that if we lead the world in carbon pricing the rest of the world will follow. We produce 1.5 per cent of the world's CO2; China and America account for 40 per cent. A 5 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions would be cancelled out by as little as a 0.3 per cent increase in China's emissions.
2. Another myth is that we have to lead the world because we are a carbon-based economy and will be more affected when and if the world introduces carbon pricing. Our carbon-based economy is one of our main competitive advantages. To lead on a carbon tax puts our industry at a serious disadvantage against our competitors.
Eighty per cent of power is generated from coal. This low-cost power has underpinned our standard of living by encouraging manufacture and giving low-cost electricity to consumers.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
A carbon tax on imports from countries without CO2 pricing is unworkable. We would need to significantly increase the Customs Department and we would still be at risk. Such a move would undo the hard won reforms of the 1990s.
3. Another myth says if we introduce the tax now it will give industry time to adapt. Industry needs years to make the investment to meet the new environment. Planning approval alone can take four or more years. The logic of starting a carbon tax in barely 12 months' time has not been thought through; five years would barely be enough.
It would be better to advise industry that CO2 will be taxed at about $50/$60 a tonne in 10 years' time when our trading partners also start to price carbon and industry should start to adjust its long term capital plans and debt financing accordingly.
The rise in the cost of fossil fuels is already affecting local prices. We must be careful not to hit the domestic and business consumer with a double whammy. If the domestic price for gas continues to rise the price for CO2 will have to rise further to force the change from coal to gas generation.
4. Another myth is that Big Business should have known a carbon tax was coming and should have been prepared. Most of our coal-fired power stations were built and owned by state governments. The taxpayer is the largest single owner with 36 per cent capacity overall, 54 per cent in NSW and 67 per cent in Queensland.
The recent sale in NSW was at a deep discount to the replacement value because of the threat of carbon pricing; NSW taxpayers virtually lost their equity on the threat of a tax.
In Victoria power stations were sold at huge prices largely to foreign investors expecting a proper electricity market that never eventuated. The owners invested in good faith with the reasonable expectation that if a price were put on CO2 they would be given adequate notice and compensation.
Indeed, CO2 trading in Europe, the obvious precedent scheme, was accompanied by the issue of close to 100 per cent free permits to the power generators for the first decade. If we can purchase permits globally as planned why not adopt common measures with the EU?
To say to government and private investors that the federal government will wipe out your equity without compensation is patently unfair. It will introduce a dangerous level of sovereign risk for long-term investment in Australia.
5. Then there is the myth that we are morally obliged to lead the way because we generate a larger proportion of carbon dioxide a head of population. Yes we do, but there are good reasons for this. We are rich in resources such as coal, iron ore, bauxite and uranium. It gives us one of our few competitive advantages.
We also have a significant agricultural sector and are a large exporter of beef and lamb, which are high CO2 emitters. Given the size of the country, our transport consumption is higher than more densely settled economies.
Exports contribute to more than 30 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions. If we want to cut emissions sharply, should we just stop exporting?
6. Closer to home is the myth that the carbon tax will hit the so called 1000 big polluters and consumers will be protected. In the end the consumer, whether local or overseas, will always pay. If the cost is not passed on, trade exposed industry in particular will either fail to survive (and jobs will be lost), or move elsewhere (loss of jobs again).
The other illogicality in this myth is that the consumer should be protected. If the government wishes to discourage the production of CO2 then the end consumer must be sent a price signal.
The concept of charging the big emitters and passing the proceeds back to the consumer is fatally flawed. The big emitters will reduce emissions or be forced out of the economy. Then there will be no money for compensation and the shock will be large.
7. Then there is the myth that renewable energy can replace coal and gas-fired energy production without a substantial cost to the consumer or business.
Putting aside the serious issues of reliability, availability and transmission, the cost of all of the available renewables, such as wind, is far higher than coal.
8. And then there is the myth that a carbon tax or ETS will force the same big polluters to invest in alternative technologies that will create jobs. The expectation that investors who have seen their investment seriously impaired by a carbon tax will race to invest in new high-cost technologies is illogical. Banks won't lend to the impaired incumbents.
Where is the plan for what Australia will look like in 2020 or 2030? Will we still have an aluminium or steel industry or any form of processing requiring energy such as food or an agricultural sector?
California legislated to introduce a cap and trade scheme in 2006, with effect from 2012. There has been no explosion in green jobs there and unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent. Jobs have simply moved across state borders.
Global emissions are a global problem. A global solution is the only answer. If we reduce our carbon emissions unilaterally there will be no benefit to the global environment.
What is the negotiation benefit of giving away our hand now, when we should be seeking to agree an emissions trajectory for Australia as part of a global deal?
This is a momentous decision and we appear to be relying on a business and investment community that we are proposing to punish. A cross your fingers approach is just not good enough when we are considering the very basis of our economic future.
Yep, it aint perfect, but he alternatives are to do nothing, or as Abbott would have it, have some penpushers in Canberra attempting to predict the future of science and technology and pump money into the chosen winners.
I think it is a bit questionable that in this case the conservatives are advocating a big government solution rather than a market based solution, going against their alleged 'ideals'.Â
Smacks of politicking.Â
What people final to understand is that CO2 can become a commodity once it is given a value. It can become profitable to capture CO2 and convert it into a valuable product, such as feedstocks, building materials, and fuels.Â
I think it is a bit questionable that in this case the conservatives are advocating a big government solution rather than a market based solution, going against their alleged 'ideals'.Â
Smacks of politicking.Â
What people final to understand is that CO2 can become a commodity once it is given a value. It can become profitable to capture CO2 and convert it into a valuable product, such as feedstocks, building materials, and fuels.Â
ManlyBacker
Winging it
I think the issue of the Carbon Tax as part of the political landscape, and I agree with Mata, is once again Gillard and co have handled it so extremely badly. Announcing a policy with nothing concrete is going to get the populace worried. FOI info from Treasury hitting the papers with nothing bedded on subsidies is just a gift to the Opposition.
As an aside I have loved the rallies. I haven't seen such good efforts such as the Pinocchio images etc since the days that Gough was sacked. My favorite from then was Fraser with a Hitler moustache ringed by a toilet seat. Today's efforts are as good if not better 🙂
As an aside I have loved the rallies. I haven't seen such good efforts such as the Pinocchio images etc since the days that Gough was sacked. My favorite from then was Fraser with a Hitler moustache ringed by a toilet seat. Today's efforts are as good if not better 🙂
I'm going to miss KK, at least your mind could wander with dirty thoughts while you had to listen to the political rhetoric.
Chip & Chase link said:
I'd agree with that, she was a bit of a sort wasn't she...quite distracting at times, even for a Queenslander!!
Fluffy said:
Carr did plenty, in fact he was responsible for many of the things that make Sydney one of the most expensive in the world to live in.
The monorail was a joke of a transport system, it went no where and cost an absolute mint to go there. They could do with expanding the tram system in Sydney and make use of that as additional transport.
The real issue with transport in the CBD is getting to either side of the city, North to South is fine, but getting over to Pyrmont is especially difficult. I used to work in saunders street, and I used to have to drive to Manly, get a ferry and then either walk or get the once every 1.5 hour bus, then walk again from the casino.
Even when I moved to Cremorne it wasn't much easier, bus to Wynyard and walk, or bus to town hall and walk or if i was lucky get the 443.
That city is an absolute mess, even getting around Brisbane is easier, and getting around melbourne is far simpler, even if their train system isn't as good as Sydney's
I love Sydney and miss it often, but everytime I go there, i can't help but realise what and over crowded mess the place is
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
