Jump to content


Photo

Clean energy future and Carbon Tax


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:54 AM

Yeah that bothers me too... the big boys always dodge the costs and pass it on to the little guy....

#62 620Z

620Z

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts
  • Location:VICTORIA - Rowville

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:10 AM

This 3.22min video puts the great Carbon Tax lie to bed plain and simple.



#63 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:32 AM

I wish I could agree, but he doesn't reference his facts at all, so even I find it a bit hard to swallow


#64 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:50 AM

The Galileo Movement is an advocacy group ... even it doesn't claim to be a scientific agency. The founders (a chemist and an engineer) are both open about the fact that they oppose the carbon tax due to its economic consequences (their opposition to climate science kind of arose from that).

If you are interested in the breadth of opinions, then balance the last youTube video with this one... also from a group of advocates


If you are interested in a relatively dispassionate overview then check out...
http://www.youtube.c...B8&feature=plcp

The Galileo Movement video itself is pretty dodgy, from the presenter (a Bachelor of ECONOMICS?? couldn't they do better than that??), through to some of the ratios and statistics (which would make the atmosphere unbreathable, if they were true) right down to the basic premise.... a little bit of something can't do any harm, right?? Except when you are talking about balanced systems, when even a tiny increase in one of the counter-balanced forces can have dramatic effects....

There are much better counter-arguments to climate change than this one.... and I haven't found the one of those that has convinced me yet either.

#65 nizm0zed

nizm0zed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,311 posts
  • Location:Canberra
  • Tagline:260z coupe in slow build, Now with RB25DE powah!!

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:10 PM

Why do people believe that taxing this big companies for producing CO2 emissions will work?  They can either invest shareholder money into reducing CO2 emissions, or, they can pass the added cost onto the consumer.  From a big business point of view, why would they spend money to reduce the emissions, when they are already losing the money through the tax? They could just pass the cost on?  It simply doesn't make sense to me, there is no incentive for them to spend the money.


Look at it this way.
Government IS a business.
They have shareholders (the country itself and other players that control/elect the current 'board of directors')
They have Consumers (us)
They have a product to sell (whatever interest or agenda is on the table)

To sell the product and make revenue that is done through taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays taxes, including other companys that want to operate in the country, then those companies become consumers of the government too.
By 'selling products' (read, carbon tax, schemes cooked up by them, whatever ect) to the company the government makes more revenue through taxes.
the company has higher running costs, at which point they pass onto their consumer (us) and we pay more.
But wait, we pay GST on that as well, so the government makes more revenue.

From a big business point of view, why on earth would you do it any other way???

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) this is a fudamental underpinning of a functioning economic society. it will never change. ever.

#66 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:18 PM

I'm kinda missing your point, why would business do what any other way?  Why wouldn't they pass on the costs?

#67 nizm0zed

nizm0zed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,311 posts
  • Location:Canberra
  • Tagline:260z coupe in slow build, Now with RB25DE powah!!

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:24 PM

my point was more along the lines of "we, the little people, will get screwed by everyone allways."
roll with the punches...

I wasnt having a go at anyone in particular

I agree with you that there is no incentive for them to do it any other way, it amazes me that people think that there would be.
Government is out to make money, this is another revenue stream for them.


#68 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:17 PM

Yeah cool, couldn't agree more

#69 nizm0zed

nizm0zed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,311 posts
  • Location:Canberra
  • Tagline:260z coupe in slow build, Now with RB25DE powah!!

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:55 AM



#70 peter t

peter t

    OLD RETIRED Z FART

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,860 posts
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Tagline:75 260 2+2 RA60 Celica Hatch 74 260

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:27 PM


Agreed, carbon tax is just another way of raising revenue and the consequences will be damageing to the already struggling encomeny.

#71 fluegel

fluegel

    Advanced Member

  • Donating Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Adelaide South Australia
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:16 AM

I didn't want to buy into this topic I just wish it will go away but it obviously will not. Anyway I will say my bit ,climate research has been totally discredited by the deceptive activities of the Uni of East Anglia climatic research unit ( see 'Climategate')  anyone who 'believes' or 'disbelieves' climate change or global warming is ignorant , science does not allow belief only a considered opinion based on supporting evidence. Global warming has only effected the northern hemisphere the southern hemisphere has been stable over the last 100 years or even falling in some places ie New Zealand. In my ill informed opinion the published graph of CO2 increase is too straight and tidy to be credible. People will believe what they want to believe ,it is called religion. In science one inconvienient fact can destroy an entire theory and this is very much the case with climate change/global warming, science does not run on consensus.

Richard

#72 MaygZ

MaygZ

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com/forum/index.php/topic,7841.0.html
  • Location:Springfield, Victoria
  • Tagline:We all started somewhere. Where are you Lurch???

Posted 29 May 2012 - 07:30 PM

THIS IS A MUCH WATCH.



Note the references are listed.  Check them yourself.  Don't just believe what you are told.  Check what you can and then consider what you can't.

SHE wants to reduce CO2 so she taxes it.  On the same day the CO2 tax comes in (presumably to get us all to do more to reduce "Global warming" oops I mean "Climate Change" - it got colder so they had to quickly spin it for us - SHE is cutting the solar rebate.  The rebate that was encouraging thousands to reduce their load on the power grid and thus reduce the amount of coal we burn and the costs of more power infrastructure.

You have to ask yourself - if SHE was fair dinkum about reducing CO2 why would SHE attempt to profit from it rather than reduce the encouragement to covert to cleaner power sources?

Remember any business with an increased cost due to CO2 Tax will simply pass that increased cost onto the consumer.  This increased cost with then attract GST!!!  SHE..2  Aussies...0

REALLY WATCH THE VIDEO - EVEN IF YOU ARE SICK TO DEATH OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROPAGANDA BULL SHIVER

#73 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:48 AM

This is the same segment linked to above and my response to it stands.

Seriously, that segment is an embarrassment to the people who promote debate on climate change from any part of the spectrum. There are some serious critiques of climate science that should be looked at (as long as people are ready to look at the other side as well), but don't just look at this one, it's insulting to everyone's intelligence. The source isn't a credible one, the spokesperson isn't credible and the facts in it are simply wrong (do the calculations, if they were true, you couldn't actually breathe the atmosphere!!).

Informed debate is good, but this isn't information, it's propaganda.

R   




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users