Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

there is another side of the carbon tax that no one has mentioned fully yet.
They are going to introduce a tax on all live stock a farmers has.
What this means is a farmer will have to pay at this stage an unknown amount per year for everyy head of live stock he owns.Thats cows,sheep,pigs,horses the lot.

As most farmers sell there livestock though sale yards who is going to pay for it the farmer so they will have less to spend on other things meaning alot of small country towns and biusnesses will go bust.


How can they sayy this is good for australia.

Ian

I think you'll find Farmers are being exempt for head of cattle etc.

This was an exemption to get the independants on board but considering the amount of farting these animals do, i'm sure there's more gas coming out of 1 cows *** compared to my FG XR6.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Raptor

In theory;

A higher prices should dampen demand => therefore any fixed resource (oil/coal) should last longer = WIN

Competing alternative become more attractive => Solar/Wind/Wave (even Nuclear?-ignoring other issues) may gain greater investment/acceptance/attention = WIN

It'll cost ME more = LOSE (unless I change my behaviour <= THERE'S A CLUE)

And as we're not allowed to discuss politics I wont even go there.

I agree. I'm no fan of being taxed, but this is something that will cost us one way or another. The carbon tax might not be the best answer, but I'm happy enough to try it. IMO it is better than not doing anything, as I believe not doing anything may just be the most expensive decision we might make.

[gtfpv]

it's kind of as i thought . they try taxing the rich resources sector , and fail , the dont want to tax bank profits , but they come to the people and tax the air we breathe. i'm so against this . when the mining resources and banks pay minimal taxes on our resources and profits .
i'm so against the made up carbon tax .

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by colinl

I agree. I'm no fan of being taxed, but this is something that will cost us one way or another. The carbon tax might not be the best answer, but I'm happy enough to try it. IMO it is better than not doing anything, as I believe not doing anything may just be the most expensive decision we might make.

There's nothing wrong with investing in more renewable sources of fuel or energy. Living standards would almost definetely improve with less polution wherever it stems from. The problem is they've concocted a tax that will hurt the manufacturing base of this country and stifle investment in the country just to fill the coffers. We do need to look after ourselves as a country before we try to show off to countries about how "Green" we are because frankly they'll just laugh at us.

I don't think anybody will argue that we need to invest in more renewable sources of fuels, it's just how the message should be conveyed instead relying on the tired old scare campaign of "Climate Change".

[atec77]

Originally Posted by colinl

I agree. I'm no fan of being taxed, but this is something that will cost us one way or another. The carbon tax might not be the best answer, but I'm happy enough to try it. IMO it is better than not doing anything, as I believe not doing anything may just be the most expensive decision we might make.

The obvious answer is tax dispensation for those who provide and prove reduced pollution levels passing them on to the consumer , of course it doesn't provide a huge free money pit to stal from but it would certainly be permissable in reducing teh cost of most things , and fuel wouldn't forced up in a bogus cah grab , but of course the government wont be able to use slight of hand bailing it's self out of a self made black hole
and our cars and hobbys wouldn't be a larger cahs supply for the ranga with tax dispensation

[PHATXR8]

"The measures and mechanisms for counting agricultural emissions are simply too complex," Ms Gillard said.

The only reason they are excluding farming from the tax is because farmers could "store" carbon in the soil easily, and plant trees on their land, thereby being net carbon savers..... this means that farmers could profit from actually producing a good environmental outcome.... therefore it needs to be excluded. Can't possibly let those farmers make any money - better off keeping them producing food for sweet bugger all profit and let the Banks and the multinationals make all of the $$$ out of the carbon TAX!!

It stinks!!

[ohzone]

It is thought that there is around 7 Billion people in the world. Who truly believes that placing a tax on 12 million individual tax payers and various Companies in Australia will make any measureable difference to the quantity of carbon put into the worlds atmosphere?
Could it be another way of increasing the governments take of our money while massaging the guilt trip that some members of society seem to be on

[MONSOON]

if(when) this does come in, food producing land will be converted to "carbon sinks" purely to profit from this hypocrisy, so more of our food will NEED to be sourced from overseas

[GOLDIE]

they told us last year there would be no carbon and now look if you think she will not tax live stock she is conning you too.
They will do and have already been out there setting it up.

As for planting more trees we are not aloud to cut any down because the greens say we cant so why would we want to take up more good production land by planting more.

On our farm wse have over 1000 acreas tied up because they sayy it is protected spieces of trees.so when has cypres pine been protected as that is what most of it is.

we would like to free a bit more for pasture land but can not anyymore.
when they bring this tax in us and many others will just have to close the farm gates and we will all suffer from this.

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

As for no political debate we are a free nation and i have a right to it.

spoolman i have not over stepped any mark and have been qiute restrand in what i have said so why delet it.



Ian

This about respecting the Site Terms & Conditions same rules for all.
Should you be unable to follow the same rules as everyone else then best you go discuss the politics elsewhere..
No politics on this site..
Again I suggest you read them, Site Terms & Conditions.
http://www.fordforums.com.au/announc...nouncementid=2

[naddis01]

So the way I understand the theory in simple terms is they want to increase the cost of anything that is producing high emissions to reduce consumption and therefore reduce emissions. Now the way I see it is that the price of electricity and fuel have increased considerably in recent times but has this resulted in any reduction in consumption? It doesn't appear that way to me. So that would mean that for there to be any real reduction in consumption they are going to have to increase the cost considerably higher than the rises we have already seen in recent times which as most have already pointed out is going to have a major detrimental effect on the economy.

Then there is the issue of compensation. Is the proposed compensation only for a short term period or for the duration of the tax? If the aim is to reduce consumption by increasing the cost, why compensate for that cost? What reduction in emissions will be acheived if there is compensation for the cost?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by naddis01

So the way I understand this is in simple terms is they want to increase the cost of Everything!

Your comment is now correct and concise.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by colinl

I agree. I'm no fan of being taxed, but this is something that will cost us one way or another. The carbon tax might not be the best answer, but I'm happy enough to try it. IMO it is better than not doing anything, as I believe not doing anything may just be the most expensive decision we might make.

I do not like being over taxed either, but there are better ways to manage this. What ever happened to reasearch into clean coal technologies? If coal is the major culprit then why not place the 'levy' 'tax' on the overseas purchaser. Same as they do to me with my water bill, electric bill, gas bill and on and on including rego.
The only thing we mere mortals have been told is the TAX is coming in July 2012, but no detail and no consultation (as promised before the election).

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

What i do have a massive problem with is what continues to be one of the most outrageous scams of the modern era. The only thing this will achieve is speeding up the process of our manufacturing base moving offshore to a country where this form of tax is not in place. We can wave goodbye to the mining industry as soon as china becomes a player in that sector because they will never have a "Carbon Tax" or "Mining Tax". We can usher in a new era of massive energy costs that will futher burden families.

This is somehow meant to help the economy? I wouldn't mind knowing how?

Brilliant! Of course other nations will not introduce such taxes because it offers them a competitive advantage not to do so. They must enjoy our stupidity. Bye bye manufacturing base. Bye bye productive sector. Hello cargo cults and banana republic. If we were to shut down 3 coal fired power plants (and feel good), would it bother us that the Chinese have perhaps 50 more they need to open to feed their economy, which is set for productive growth? The net carbon output massively increases, no matter what.

[Bobman]

With the amount of taxes already imposed on us and this year the LPG excise begins, how can anyone ever attack someone trying to avoid paying it? Especially when the tax we pay does not pay for the items we need in society. It gets wasted on rubbish.

Will this carbon tax fix those dodgy factories that have chemicals leaking from barrels into the street and down the sewer? How about industries that pour oil or other stuff down the drain?

As for nuclear power, the waste from that doesn't make it viable either. There are better ways to clean up this country without a carbon tax or nuclear power.

[metasaiah]

I got this in an email recently. I'm sure some of you have received it already, maybe even months ago, but thought I'd share...


All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you know .....that bogus god you worship of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming"......well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of some bad news. It really does pain me to have to bring you this disappointing information.

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, I know.... (group hug)...it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

I'm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate all your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario. No mention of a Tax on all the emissions caused by Prescribed Bush Fire Burning?

The Prescribed forest burning in Victoria alone puts more c02 into the atmosphere that all power generation in Australia in one year?


Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bulls**t artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that now the same government is in control, you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure! So much for "social justice", the frequently used catch phrase used by governments to convince the voting populace that their policies will somehow benefit the not so well off!

[buggerlugs]

Looks like my Black Pajero has to go as well...............to bad if I don't like white cars.....

[Brazen]

The ironic thing is that if companies like Ford Australia shut up shop and move production offshore, it will likely be to countries which have lower environmental standards to us, so the Carbon Tax would in the end be increasing emissions...

[colinl]

Can I email her my support

I know the scheme isn't ideal, but nothing ever is when an idea is first implemented. IMO, what is important is doing something. Were would we be if everyone just sat around arguing about an engine design insisting that one was better than another. Sometimes you just have to make a decision and jump right in, then improve, develop and adjust. This is the process we have used for just about everything we have ever made.

Slightly off topic, but fuel cost could well be a non issue in this discussion. I don't know if any of you have seen any of the articles on a UK based company called Cella Energy
have a hydrogen based fuel that is very close to coming on the market. It can be used in existing cars, is synthetically made, emits no carbon only water and is expected to be cheaper than petrol.

I've been called a bit of greeny on here before. I never really thought of myself that way, but then I did go and buy a 3.7kw solar energy set up for my house and a solar hot water service. I have endless fun running the pool pump, all the ceiling fans, big plasma TV and still watching my meter run backward as I pump electricity back into the grid at 44c per KW.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by colinl

Can I email her my support

I know the scheme isn't ideal, but nothing ever is when an idea is first implemented. IMO, what is important is doing something. Were would we be if everyone just sat around arguing about an engine design insisting that one was better than another. Sometimes you just have to make a decision and jump right in, then improve, develop and adjust. This is the process we have used for just about everything we have ever made.

Thats all well and good for an engine I can CHOOSE to buy, but I wont be able to choose to participate in the Carbon Tax, it will effect every aspect of my family's life from the cost of the milk we buy to the cost of turning on a light. It will also affect the thousands of Australians who work in manufacturing who will now need to compete with countries which dont have a Carbon Tax.

40% of our emissions are from coal, go nuclear which is safe and that will make the biggest difference. Even the bastian of renewables - Germany, gets over a quarter of their electricity from Nuclear!

[Franco Cozzo]

You know what, no matter what you do, tax this, tax that, ban this, ban that, stop producing this, stop burning that, even if global warming is true or not (i'm not going there), you won't stop it, because it requires a world wide effort, on behalf of everyone who lives on the planet to do something about it, not just half-*** slap a tax on it and make it expensive.

I did Environmental Science in year 11 and I got an A for an outcome where I pointed out the problem and how we won't ever be able to fix it because it requires co-operation world wide and everyone hates each other or isn't willing to put the hard yards in.

Rather than tax, I say we put money into research and development of new technology. Go Nuclear, its the best option on the cards, especially for us with a massive veil of uranium in the ground, plus you could have a nuclear weapons programme as well.

But then, I'm just another number in the system, so what do I know?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Thats all well and good for an engine I can CHOOSE to buy, but I wont be able to choose to participate in the Carbon Tax, it will effect every aspect of my family's life from the cost of the milk we buy to the cost of turning on a light. It will also affect the thousands of Australians who work in manufacturing who will now need to compete with countries which dont have a Carbon Tax.

40% of our emissions are from coal, go nuclear which is safe and that will make the biggest difference. Even the bastian of renewables - Germany, gets over a quarter of their electricity from Nuclear!

I only used the engine because of the context within a Ford forum. The same principle applies to just about all our legislation, sporting games and rules and even city designs. Regardless of wether we move with a carbon tax, some other system, or do nothing; I'd suggest that every aspect of you and your families lives will be effected one way or another.

Nuclear is certainly an option.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

You know what, no matter what you do, tax this, tax that, ban this, ban that, stop producing this, stop burning that, even if global warming is true or not (i'm not going there), you won't stop it, because it requires a world wide effort, on behalf of everyone who lives on the planet to do something about it, not just half-*** slap a tax on it and make it expensive.

I did Environmental Science in year 11 and I got an A for an outcome where I pointed out the problem and how we won't ever be able to fix it because it requires co-operation world wide and everyone hates each other or isn't willing to put the hard yards in.

Rather than tax, I say we put money into research and development of new technology. Go Nuclear, its the best option on the cards, especially for us with a massive veil of uranium in the ground, plus you could have a nuclear weapons programme as well.

But then, I'm just another number in the system, so what do I know?

It can certainly be a ***** getting everyone on board. Everyone always wants someone else to make the first step. International participation is achievable though. We already have wide acceptance of environmental goals and legislation.

The tax was initially designed so that the funding did go into research. It also encourages manufacturers to put more effort into development of cleaner methods. Where it is falling down a little now is that Julia Gillard is trying soften the blow, by using the tax funding to offset the higher costs people will experience. Rather than rebates, I would just go with the original idea and stick the money into technology development and subsidies to help people move to more modern technology.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by colinl

It can certainly be a ***** getting everyone on board. Everyone always wants someone else to make the first step. International participation is achievable though. We already have wide acceptance of environmental goals and legislation.

The tax was initially designed so that the funding did go into research. It also encourages manufacturers to put more effort into development of cleaner methods. Where it is falling down a little now is that Julia Gillard is trying soften the blow, by using the tax funding to offset the higher costs people will experience. Rather than rebates, I would just go with the original idea and stick the money into technology development and subsidies to help people move to more modern technology.

I don't know about you, but I don't see China or India interested in the slightest here.

Righto, but isn't a lot of the tax on fuel supposed to go into the roads as well? Where I live, I don't see any of that cash go into the roads, thats for sure, what they do is get allocated money from certain taxes to go into these areas but they use it on something else.

We can't go further into this because the moment you go into the next step, its right in politics, and we don't like politics on this here forum.

[Murph-51]

ahhhhhh, at long last there are finally a few that realize what a load of bollocks this global warming, or green house whatsa ma call it is!
They will start imposing a tax on earthquakes shortly, due to the ground opening up and letting these tiny "trace gases" escape!!!
Have we not all had enough?? This is the highest taxing country in the world , and to make sure we stay at the top of that list, we gonna add some more tax!! Your fruit and veg are about to sky rocket, your milk is going through the roof, for the love of god peoples, even ya bog paper is going up!!! And are we gonna sit by idly and let all this happen around us?
How much more can you afford to be out of pocket? I am going to have to ask my employer for at least an 18% pay increase in the first year in our next EBG to cover the cost in living, and you know the response I'll get from that!!!!
As has been quoted before, manufacturing will be left deserted, unemployment will sky rocket!!!
Answer me this question ppls, if the governing bodies of our country are so apposed to allowing more of these "trace gases" into the atmosphere, then why do they continually allow Land clearing to take place for more Infrastructure to be built( Land clearing = knocking down trees that help the planets atmosphere)and the widening of roads/freeways to allow and encourage even more vehicles onto the road putting even more "trace gases" into the atmosphere!!!
The radical weather pattern we are seeing at the moment peeps is NOT AT ALL RELATED TO ANYTHING US HUMANS HAVE DONE!!! If you believe for one moment that it is, then we have lost this battle before it has begun!
It wouldn't shock me at all if this agenda either ousts it's current leader.

[ohzone]

Originally Posted by colinl

It can certainly be a ***** getting everyone on board. Everyone always wants someone else to make the first step. International participation is achievable though. We already have wide acceptance of environmental goals and legislation.

The tax was initially designed so that the funding did go into research. It also encourages manufacturers to put more effort into development of cleaner methods. Where it is falling down a little now is that Julia Gillard is trying soften the blow, by using the tax funding to offset the higher costs people will experience. Rather than rebates, I would just go with the original idea and stick the money into technology development and subsidies to help people move to more modern technology.

Never in the history of nations has every nation agreed to any one thing and say we do manage to knock a small percentage of carbon production of each of the 7 Billion people in the world, what happens when the world reaches 8 Billion or 10 Billion or more. It might make some of the "true believers" to have a warm comfy feeling, but the truth is, it is just skirting around the problem of over population.

Ever see a few grasshoppers in a field?, no real problem they would eat a bit but not enough to cause problems.
Now turn that into a Locust plague, what happens next, no field left.
There's your problem!.

Us Humans always skirt around problems coming up with all these ideas that will save our Planet it's not the Planet we need worry about, she always bounces back after every plague, we won't be any different.
Our world is geared around growth, whether it be the economically or by population.
The real questions are How long is that sustainable? and what Tax will fix it ?

[colinl]

China and India are tough nuts to crack. Not so much because of them, but because of you and me. They will respond to market pressure. If people won't buy their product because of their reluctance to agree to global policies then they will jump on board. The trouble is that we tend to only look at value through the hip pocket. So perhaps the answer isn't trying to change them, but rather the way we attach value to products.

It has always been a problem with emerging economies. The emerging countries look at how the developed countries got to where they are, then try and copy. Often this happens down the track when international ideals have changed, and the established guys say "hang on, you can't do that." And the new guys reply with "why not, you did?" It has happened with colonialism, refrigeration (an under recognised pre-curser to modernisation) and now with carbon emissions.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by colinl

I've been called a bit of greeny on here before. I never really thought of myself that way, but then I did go and buy a 3.7kw solar energy set up for my house and a solar hot water service. I have endless fun running the pool pump, all the ceiling fans, big plasma TV and still watching my meter run backward as I pump electricity back into the grid at 44c per KW.

I don't see you as being green for lessening your reliance on the power grid. You've done a massive favour to yourself by giving yourself fantastic energy supplies and infact are getting paid to do it. You're no longer reliant on power companies as you're essentially your own.

You should be patting yourself on the back massively but not for being "Green" or making a difference to "Climate Change".

[Scott]

My thoughts on this are pretty black and it's hard to talk about this tax without remembering all the other idiotic ideas that have cost us billions recently.

Kind of like talking in isolation about the latest assault by a career rapist...

This tax, be it fuel related or in the wider sense, has nothing at all to do with Carbon reduction. If it did, it would not be handed back to the *poor*, it would be spent on actually reducing carbon. Wow, what a concept...

>snip< all the other stuff.

[mickbundy]

This tax should be on every tonne of resource that is sent out of Australia by the mining companies. The carbon produced making steel, aluminum,coal for power in other countries. That way when this tax does come in it may stop our producers heading overseas to avoid the carbon tax. Just seems silly that we will cop the tax but the rest of the world that buys our resources do not. I am not saying the tax is wrong just the wrong people being taxed