[chookpea]

So what does everyone think? I'm just reading through it now.

Looks like they've capped the compensation for families earning up to 150K again. So we lose out again by the looks of it.

I guess any consolation we have is the increase in the tax free threshold. Pffft.

[schrodinger'...]

It's as useful as teats on a bull.

$9.90 cost per household (and if you believe that, there's a nice bridge I'm interested in selling to you) per week compared to $10.10 tax assistance. That meansd one sector is being overtaxed and another over compensated. It's nothing to do with carbon dioxide reduction and everything to do with wealth redistribution. Already one company Cement Australia has announced it's shutting up shop.

EFS

This post has been edited by schrodinger's cat: 10/07/2011, 02:49 PM

[mandij86]

I'm just glad someone is finally DOING SOMETHING ! I'm not really interested in what "I'm" going to get out of it. I believe in climate change. I believe we should at least be trying to save the planet.... rather than just throwing up our hands and saying too hard !

It may not be the perfect mechanism, but it's a start. I don't see how the "direct action scheme" can effectively make a 'real' difference.

I just don't understand this debate. This is a parenting forum so I assume most people have or wish to have children. I don't believe it's an emotional argument to think about your great-grandchildren. I think it's perfectly reasonable. If you believe in climate change, how can you not support this ?

If you don't believe in climate change, I pray you're correct, as I fear that maybe we are all too selfish to deal with such a global problem.

We are predomiantely a 'weathy' country. Many of us could afford to pay a bit extra or reduce our consumption, for the greater good !!

Are we seriously saying that $10 a week is too much to pay for the planet. What would you really be prepared to pay for your children's children's children to have a future?

[Azadel]

I'm appalled there are people whose first thought on all this is "what's in it for me?"

Compensation for just about everyone does nothing to change behaviour. Would have loved to see some guts from the ALP on this but no.

And Tony Abbott still plans to oppose the whole thing.

[elcarimfarm]

The way I see it, whether climate change is related to emissions or not, we ARE going to run out of resources if we keep growing the population and using unsustainable means of supporting it. So encouraging renewable energy is not going to be a waste of time if it turns out that we aren't responsible for global warming etc.

I agree that something had to be done. We can't keep going on the pattern of being able to use as much resources as we want as long as we have the $$ to pay for it, because all the money in the world won't stop us from running out of oil and it won't create more farming land to feed all the people.

We have got so far away from our roots and so used to being able to have everything that I think it has changed many parts of society for the worse. If this can be the beginning of a change to those sort of mindsets perhaps the health of the earth and its inhabitants can start to improve. The way we are going, on a cycle of wanting to make more money so we can consume more resources, is a dead-end street.

This tax is meant to be aimed at the big polluters and consumers. It seems to me that there are two choices: either pay extra as a result the tax or change your consumption habits so that you are not supporting the big polluters.

I also hope that the Government will not go soft on this. Sometimes the only way to change the living habits of people is to hit them in the wallet. I know I am a bit of a hippy, but I think this tax has the potential to change so many things if it is handled correctly. The culture of waste and excess needs to be challenged.

[Guest_HappyLarry_*]

I agree with CCWA except Cement Australia is not shutting up shop, its closing down one site and not because of the tax.

I do believe in man made climate change and think we need to take action but I dont see this as action - more wealth distribution. We will have to wait and see what is said tonight I guess, JG might surprise me.

[casime]

I'm still not convinced how this is going to actually help, and I am worried that it may hurt those that can least afford it because I'm not convinced that prices won't be unfairly hiked in the guise of carbon tax. I think I'd be more comfortable with it if there was a cap on prices increases to those costs that these businesses actually incur, otherwise what is stop them overinflating the prices above and beyond what the government claims it is actually going to cost people. If a business incurs a 5% increase in their costs, but increase the cost to the consumer 20%, then that $10.10 per week compensation figure is going to be blown out of the water pretty fast.

[Vesper79]

The Australian carbon tax will make absolutely ZERO impact on environment, given that huge polluters like China, India and the USA are doing absolutely nothing to reduce their emissions.

Raising water levels due to pollution is not contained in just the space around your country! The effects of pollution from neighbouring nations will raise our water levels regardless of whether Australia reduces emissions or not. An analogy would be, say one street in Australia recycling, whilst the rest of the country/world doesn't. What impact will that have? NONE.

Its basically an opportunity for the government to raise funds after haphazardly spending it, remember the $950 cash handouts? Guess what, money doesnt grow on trees! Those half brained initiatives have left the country broke and in deficit, so they now need to raise afew dimes. This has nothing to do with the government trying to be kind to the environment and everything to do with raising funds.

[mandij86]

Vesper - if that was true, why aren't they just keeping the money ? What should we do then.... nothing. There was a time when very few people recycled, and now it's the norm. It had to start somewhere ! Why shouldn't we be the first someone has too ?

[Femogan Boop!]

The Australian carbon tax will make absolutely ZERO impact on environment, given that huge polluters like China, India and the USA are doing absolutely nothing to reduce their emissions.

Raising water levels due to pollution is not contained in just the space around your country! The effects of pollution from neighbouring nations will raise our water levels regardless of whether Australia reduces emissions or not. An analogy would be, say one street in Australia recycling, whilst the rest of the country/world doesn't. What impact will that have? NONE.

Its basically an opportunity for the government to raise funds after haphazardly spending it, remember the $950 cash handouts? Guess what, money doesnt grow on trees! Those half brained initiatives have left the country broke and in deficit, so they now need to raise afew dimes. This has nothing to do with the government trying to be kind to the environment and everything to do with raising funds.

I don't think that's a reasonable enough excuse. Per capita, Australia is one of the worst polluters. We are also a wealthy country, compared to developing nations like India, so we can afford to act right now.

Other countries have already introduced schemes to reduce their carbon emissions. Why shouldn't we act now?

It's not a staring contest with Australia refusing to act until every other country does the same thing.

Oh and the $950 handouts I didn't agree with at all. I have come to accept (based on what economists have said) that they went a long way towards averting Australia's collision with the GFC. I have far more issue with the insulation scheme, schools program and the handouts for flood victims which were poorly managed and and subject to overspending without result.

I would have preferred Australia had introduced a scheme like Germany did (cash for clunkers) but it's too late now.