Australia votes to repeal carbon tax

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by dumbest man on earth, Jul 17, 2014.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    And just in case you weren't convinced of what you posted, he gave you one more chunk of data to test him by.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    So, basically, you're stating that individuals formulate government policy by means of popularism.

    Gee. What a wondrous idea. Somebody should have told Ghandi to get the yokels on side, he might have got somewhere. Or does it only count when the yokels hold the same values dear that you do?

    Who cares if Rinehart believes in global warming or not? Is that a reason to increase taxes, because someone doesn't hold the same beliefs you do? The Ottoman Empire did that. Look where they are now.
    How about we give Rinehart the incentive to lower carbon emissions of her own accord, because to do otherwise would decrease her profits?
    Now there's a novel idea. Speaking to the unbeliever in the language of their unbelief. Whoo. But, no. The best our government has in the way of imagination is to increase their own revenue by placing a tax on the very thing the yokels believe is so important, and who, incidentally, couldn't spot a rort if it was written on a cardboard sign in bright red texta and waved around in front of their faces.

    All Rinehart, and everyone like her, was ever going to do was increase the prices of their product to cover the new expense. Simple, expedient, and effective.
    Not to mention as fucking predictable as knowing the answer to any problem in any politicians mind is to raise taxes.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    And? Is this supposed to be an argument for yet another goddamned tax?

    No it isn't. It is the responsibility of a society to ensure that those costs aren't necessary to begin with. Or are, at least, significantly reduced.

    It was a market mechanism that only resulted in - and could only have resulted in - increased revenue for the government. I might even have been at least marginally impressed with it, had that very same government spent the revenue on green initiatives - on an exact dollar for dollar basis.
    Instead, the increased revenue probably got squandered on Lebanese babies. Or Kevin '07's vote-for-me-and-I'll-buy-you-a-free-TV-campaign.
    A small factoid : I never claimed his fucking $900. And I voted against the conniving prick.

    And regarding Kev's "Big Australia" ideals - I don't suppose it's too much of a stretch on the imagination to realise that the more people there are in the world, the more we're going to impact the environment?
    Her's an idea. We stop paying people to have babies. At the very least, there'd be a million less uninformed proles running around trying to convince each other it's the fat cats causing the problems.
    Jesus, if we could just shut them up, it'd be a 10% reduction in carbon emissions right there. Getting them to stop breeding would result in another significant reduction.
    Not to mention setting an example for the rest of the world whose opinions you care so much for.

    And I take exception to the "better than nothing" argument. All that achieves is a few years grace during which the voting public settle down and stop thinking about the issue because they've been given the impression that "something is being done".
    Bandaids don't heal wounds. They disguise them.

    I believe all I've done here is argue against a carbon tax. Extrapolating anything else from that is idle speculation... and quite wrong.
    I'm about as green as one can be. I also know exactly what a fart in an elevator is. I don't have to buy into this bullshit simply because I want to wear the green t-shirt they give out as a consolation prize.

    Yes, I do. I have direct experience with it.
    And I have no idea how a carbon tax is supposed to be any incentive.

    Know what I really detest? It's these people who try to claim the carbon tax has had a direct effect on emissions. Bullshit. Energy companies have, for years now, embraced new ideas and begun marketing products based around the "green" philosophy.
    Of their own accord. I could name three or four incentives without even giving it much consideration. Subsidised PV metering. Greenpower. The Alice Springs Solar Energy Project. Want me to go on?

    Now check the inception dates. All of this was happening before any carbon tax scheme was introduced. I'm absolutely disgusted to now see quotes from some newspaper (and some posters above) claiming that the carbon tax is responsible for companies now addressing environmental problems. Fact is, they have been for years. Because most of them actually do care, and because, as you said above, they bow to popular opinion - if only because to do otherwise would adversely affect profit.

    Not because some unimaginative bunch of politicians elected to use the cane rather than the carrot.

    It wouldn't come as much of a surprise. It's still spin, though. You're never going to convince me that Australia's population of 25 million or thereabouts, regardless of their "per capita" carbon emissions, is having as much effect on the environment as say, China's billions. Notice the smog around China during the Olympics? What do you think your response would be if they decided to point fingers at Australia using their "per capita output" as an excuse?
    How about they just stop having fucking babies? Reckon that might have an impact?

    So, for you, it's all about the image?
    You wouldn't be alone. I'm seeing far too many opinions here based more around what everyone thinks of us, rather than proposing any workable ideas.
    Show me solutions, and I'm all eyes and ears. This crap about how we're suddenly the dog that shat on the carpet because we axed a ridiculous revenue-gathering exercise is just political faff.
    So how about we use that inventiveness and lateral thinking we're supposedly famous for, and come up with something that actually works - as opposed to a tax-gathering scheme which inflates prices and puts Joe Average put of pocket?
    How about we actually take the lead, rather than merely following others?

    Or is that too much to ask for?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page