Do you support a carbon tax ? (48)
its just money, and will hurt people with less money those with lots of money will not care, i knew a guy who had his air con set and running 24 hours a day every day, cos he is rich,
i bet the candle makers and kero heater makers are looking forward to it, we are going to need more firemen....
pollution is bad but playing with money is not the way
i bet the candle makers and kero heater makers are looking forward to it, we are going to need more firemen....
pollution is bad but playing with money is not the way
------ This poll is Archived ------
I really don't see the point. Owing to exorbitant rises in rates since the privatisation of energy utilities, those who are at the low-mid sector of income have already been compelled to cut back energy usage. Furthermore, the rises in petrol prices have forced many to use the car a lot less. How can a further tax change things? Seriously, I see this as a typical labour party grab for revenue and nothing more. Australia's pollution output is minute compared to developing nations and these nations aren't signatories to the Kyoto agreement.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. It's so damn complicated!
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. It's so damn complicated!
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
Yes. Pollution is bad.
No. Developed countries want to impose financial penalties on developing countries to eliminate competition. That's why the developing countries have not signed on to the Kyoto protocol.
Maybe. Maybe some balance can be found between options #1 and 2? Maybe so-called "carbon taxes" are the balance?
I don't know. (Self-explanatory.)
But I'd still vote for no. 5, if it were there...
This is being introduced in my country as we speak. The party legislating this tax have done a poor job of explaining what will be done with this revenue to alleviate pollution. Many believe this tax will fill the coffers of consolidated revenue. We are taxed heavily as it is. I don't know, I just wish I knew what they intended to do with it.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Blues63: This is being introduced in my country as we speak. The party legislating this tax have done a poor job of explaining what will be done with this revenue to alleviate pollution. Many believe this tax will fill the coffers of consolidated revenue. We are taxed heavily as it is. I don't know, I just wish I knew what they intended to do with it.
I know nothing of Australian politics. But I can assure you, whenever any new source of government revenue appears, it always ends up being spent as general revenue, whether it is counted as such or not. Even if it is specified as destined for a specific department, it merely replaces other money for that department, which then gets spread through the other departments. It's just like you or me: we have a certain income, and if another $20 a month appears that must be spent on groceries, that only means we've saved $20 on groceries, which will now be spent on the utility bills or the car payment or whatever else we have to deal with. (Except that you and me, unlike governments, don't constantly have constituents clamoring in our ears, demanding we spend more on this that and the other.)
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: I know nothing of Australian politics. But I can assure you, whenever any new source of government revenue appears, it always ends up being spent as general revenue, whether it is counted as such or not. Even if it is specified as destined for a specific department, it merely replaces other money for that department, which then gets spread through the other departments. It's just like you or me: we have a certain income, and if another $20 a month appears that must be spent on groceries, that only means we've saved $20 on groceries, which will now be spent on the utility bills or the car payment or whatever else we have to deal with. (Except that you and me, unlike governments, don't constantly have constituents clamoring in our ears, demanding we spend more on this that and the other.)
Exactly! So, how does this lower levels of pollution? It doesn't.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Blues63: Exactly! So, how does this lower levels of pollution? It doesn't.
In theory, it might, given a free-market economy. Company A produces lower emissions, gets taxed less; company B produces more, gets taxed more. This would give company B an incentive to lower its emissions.
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
------ This poll is Archived ------
Like all of you above, I see a need to serve the environmental needs, But Taxation only hurts those most in need of the money its taken from...
In ireland, the recently elected government are already imposing new "stealth" taxes on the public to bail out the failed banking system, and it would be my worry that funds from these carbon taxes would only be used to effects that would serve the bank bail outs and not the environmental issues...
Call me cynical, but i have no trust in our leaders to be up front and honest with us...
A_B...
...
In ireland, the recently elected government are already imposing new "stealth" taxes on the public to bail out the failed banking system, and it would be my worry that funds from these carbon taxes would only be used to effects that would serve the bank bail outs and not the environmental issues...
Call me cynical, but i have no trust in our leaders to be up front and honest with us...
A_B...
...------ This poll is Archived ------
The problem as I see it is that if a company is creating above average pollution, they need to spend money to reduce that pollution, therefore by taxing them more, it will reduce the cash flow to pay for pollution reduction.
What should be done is a tax incentive, so if money is used to reduce their carbon footprint then they get a tax reduction.
Which is why they want to create a tax, so they can collect more money rather than reduce pollution.
What should be done is a tax incentive, so if money is used to reduce their carbon footprint then they get a tax reduction.
Which is why they want to create a tax, so they can collect more money rather than reduce pollution.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: In theory, it might, given a free-market economy. Company A produces lower emissions, gets taxed less; company B produces more, gets taxed more. This would give company B an incentive to lower its emissions.
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
Excellent post Dag .But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
------ This poll is Archived ------
rizlared: The problem as I see it is that if a company is creating above average pollution, they need to spend money to reduce that pollution, therefore by taxing them more, it will reduce the cash flow to pay for pollution reduction.
What should be done is a tax incentive, so if money is used to reduce their carbon footprint then they get a tax reduction.
Which is why they want to create a tax, so they can collect more money rather than reduce pollution.
What should be done is a tax incentive, so if money is used to reduce their carbon footprint then they get a tax reduction.
Which is why they want to create a tax, so they can collect more money rather than reduce pollution.
The tax should be bracketed according to usage!------ This poll is Archived ------
leigh2154: The tax should be bracketed according to usage!
Agreed.
Smoking is another easily taxed product, if the government really wanted to end smoking, they would introduce incentives to those addicted, but the amount of tax gained far outweighs the health problems caused.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: In theory, it might, given a free-market economy. Company A produces lower emissions, gets taxed less; company B produces more, gets taxed more. This would give company B an incentive to lower its emissions.
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
I agree, but in effect, it's useless in reducing emissions as such, it merely makes the consumer financially accountable for said emissions. The population is trying to reduce usage owing to up to 60% price hikes and all this will serve to do is increase these energy rates.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Nope!
Why help perpetuate the Hoax of The Millennium?
Why help perpetuate the Hoax of The Millennium?
------ This poll is Archived ------
jaigoulding: I believe pollution and climate change throughout the world is an urgent problen. And everyone should have an opinion on actions that should be taken by Governments now.
Pollution and CO2 are two different things,but the ones making exorbitant Profits from a non-existent problem have every interest to mingle the two!------ This poll is Archived ------
Conrad73: Pollution and CO2 are two different things,but the ones making exorbitant Profits from a non-existent problem have every interest to mingle the two!
Yes, there is that. For every paper published in support of Global Warming there is another contradicting it.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Conrad73: Pollution and CO2 are two different things,but the ones making exorbitant Profits from a non-existent problem have every interest to mingle the two!
Even if "pollution" and "CO2" were mutually exclusive, Conrad, surely you don't mean to say you are in favor of the former?
And if they are not mutually exclusive, you cannot find one benign and the other malignant.
------ This poll is Archived ------
I'm in favor of a breathing tax. 
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: Even if "pollution" and "CO2" were mutually exclusive, Conrad, surely you don't mean to say you are in favor of the former?
And if they are not mutually exclusive, you cannot find one benign and the other malignant.
Sulfurdioxide,Nitrogendioxide?And if they are not mutually exclusive, you cannot find one benign and the other malignant.
Lets put a Tax on Di-hydrogen Monoxide Vapor!
------ This poll is Archived ------
------ This poll is Archived ------
------ This poll is Archived ------
Conrad73: Nope!
Why help perpetuate the Hoax of The Millennium?
tax hoax.if it moves tax it if it doesnt tax it here too many taxes.Why help perpetuate the Hoax of The Millennium?
------ This poll is Archived ------
Dagosto: In theory, it might, given a free-market economy. Company A produces lower emissions, gets taxed less; company B produces more, gets taxed more. This would give company B an incentive to lower its emissions.
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
But the devil's in the details.
First, it's a political solution: it seeks to hide the tax from the voting consumer, but he and she is gonna end up paying it anyway, to either company A (for the cost of upgrading its power plants) or to company B (for the cost of the tax). Consumers get their power from a shared distribution grid, and do not get to choose which plant their power comes from.
Second, nothing ensures that either A or B will comply. Since they do not have to compete, why should they?
Third, and most importantly, air is air, worldwide. No legislation enacted in Australia, or the US, or Denmark or Spain or Nigeria or Kyrgyzstan or even China is gonna reduce carbon emissions significantly (though the last might make some measurable impact). That's why the Kyoto Protocol is the only sort of idea in the right direction (and the only one that can't be made to work unless the whole population of the planet and all its constituent governments get on board).
I agree totaly with you, anyway different readings give different views. also lots of things being done, like planting trees when cutting down, more trees been planted to absorb pollution in our own towns which do have an effect in that area.
This to me is just following natures own advice if you get me. Tax well its just linning someones pocket.,
------ This poll is Archived ------
jaigoulding: I believe pollution and climate change throughout the world is an urgent problen. And everyone should have an opinion on actions that should be taken by Governments now.
I am having difficulty in comprehending how this method of collecting a carbon tax, that Ms Gillard proposes, is going to help reduce the quantity and effects of all the major polluters, such as in agriculture and large industries. For example, the latter cna buy their way out of an obligation to physically reduce emissions, by earning carbon credits. It's rather akin to paper trading rather than the real thing. In the end, you don't really make real money. Similarly, the ones that hevily pollute, will essentially continue to do so. In real terms.JMO.
------ This poll is Archived ------
jaigoulding: I believe pollution and climate change throughout the world is an urgent problen. And everyone should have an opinion on actions that should be taken by Governments now.
More local economies, a protectionist stance against the WTO, an increased taxation on shipping distances and an increased taxation - both at employer and employee level - on marketing departments. Let's cut out the insidious nature and woeful scale of marketeering so we are not sold more than we want to buy.
I'm not a supporter of the argument for global warming, but we do need to lower consumption or face genuine catastrophe. Pragmatic measures now could cover both eventualities.
------ This poll is Archived ------
venere08: I am having difficulty in comprehending how this method of collecting a carbon tax, that Ms Gillard proposes, is going to help reduce the quantity and effects of all the major polluters, such as in agriculture and large industries. For example, the latter cna buy their way out of an obligation to physically reduce emissions, by earning carbon credits. It's rather akin to paper trading rather than the real thing. In the end, you don't really make real money. Similarly, the ones that hevily pollute, will essentially continue to do so. In real terms.JMO.
Well, that's basically the problem. The govt. hasn't explained this very well at all, yet we will find it on our energy bills, either directly, or indirectly.
------ This poll is Archived ------
TrueBlue1986: More local economies, a protectionist stance against the WTO, an increased taxation on shipping distances and an increased taxation - both at employer and employee level - on marketing departments. Let's cut out the insidious nature and woeful scale of marketeering so we are not sold more than we want to buy.
I'm not a supporter of the argument for global warming, but we do need to lower consumption or face genuine catastrophe. Pragmatic measures now could cover both eventualities.
I'm not a supporter of the argument for global warming, but we do need to lower consumption or face genuine catastrophe. Pragmatic measures now could cover both eventualities.
But as people in developing countries become more affluent, the cycle will continue don't you think?
------ This poll is Archived ------
I believe new automobile engine size and emmissions should be severely regulated to an international standard in every country manufacturing autos ! 
------ This poll is Archived ------
jvaski: I believe new automobile engine size and emmissions should be severely regulated to an international standard in every country manufacturing autos !
Yeah sure, let's start with the US.
------ This poll is Archived ------
kidatheart: Yeah sure, let's start with the US.
What? Kill off the V8?
------ This poll is Archived ------
This Poll is Archived
This Poll is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Poll get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
More Threads
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
The weird and the random facts around the world
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Kultur-multur
the way you look
Democrats destroyed America
men's perspective towards women
Unions support Democrats!
your favorite topic?
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Stats for this Poll
58 Votes
1,525 Views
48 Comments
Created: Jun 2011
Last Viewed: Apr 25
Last Commented: Jun 2011
Last Voted: Jul 2017
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Kultur-multur
- the way you look
- Democrats destroyed America
- men's perspective towards women
- Unions support Democrats!
- your favorite topic?
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Do you support a carbon tax ?(Vote Below)