Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its a good theory until you throw in the US, they are 16 times more densely populated than us but emissions are about the same.

The same? The US produces about 25% of the worlds emmissions while Australia produces 1.5%. Or are you talking about that per capita rubbish??

[melbzetec]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why bother commenting then? You've added nothing to the discussion.
Thanks, now move along.

Clearly it was sarcasm wrapped in a little bit of high possibility. (operations moving off shore)

It is a complex argument, and comments like the one I commented on provide no value to the discussion.

It is unsophisticated smartarsery, not cleverly constructed sarcasm.

Currently there is no "price" on carbon. Which means that if you have two companies producing the same products, but one company pumping twice as much CO2 or pollution into the atmosphere, it makes no difference to the costs of the business. And there is no penalty for polluting the atmosphere. Which means you are encouraged to pollute, and obversely, not encouraged to reduce your emissions.

For example, if I manufacture something in my backyard, and dump the waste into your backyard, you'd expect me to stop or be compensated. But dumping CO2 into the environment comes with no penalty whatsoever

The idea of the carbon tax (short term) is to provide the price signal that pumping CO2 into the environment is not cost free, and to transfer those funds raised towards low polluting enterprises. The proposed program is not just taking money out of the economy, the proposal is to put all of those funds raised back into the economy. $x billion out, $x million in. The net result is zero tax, but financial reward to low polluters, and a cost to those high polluters. A cost that reflects the damage they do to the environment
That provides an economic incentive for all companies to lower their CO2 emissions. Not just cop a tax, but focus on how much carbon they use and to work to reduce that output. And it has the effect of creating jobs in the lower polluting companies and reducing jobs in the high polluting companies. Again, probably with a zero TOTAL impact on jobs. (But you'll only ever hear of job losses)


After the short term, this will transition to an ETS scheme, where carbon credits can be traded. Meaning low pollution companies can sell carbon credits and make their businesses more profitable (and grow and hire more people), high polluters will need to buy credits, increasing their costs, but encouraging them to be more efficient and reduce their costs.

What I've written I believe adds to the discussion.

Saying "the sky's falling in" adss nothing.

And I'll "move along" when I'm ready

[gunner]

I think this hysteria about the loss of jobs, cost of petrol, end of Australia, etc is over the top. The PM hasn't released any details, all we have is the broad framework of how the tax will work. What seems to have been lost in the discussion (rants?) is that the tax will evolve into a carbon trading scheme which both sides of politics support. (Well they both used to support I really can't tell where Abbott sits anymore)

So like it or not we are going to pay for our carbon emissions. The whole point is to change our behaviour and hence change our economy from a 20th century carbon based economy to a 21st century alternate energy based economy. It may be painful for a couple of years but the long term benefits should (hopefully) be worth it.

I found this article quite interesting:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbo...301-1bcfy.html

[vztrt]

Holden backs carbon tax

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257846001880EC

Holden MD says impact on fuel prices would be minor, is keen to cut emissions

1 March 2011

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS

HOLDEN says it will support a carbon tax in Australia, despite possible effects that even a small petrol price rise will have on Commodore sales, because manufacturers are striving to reduce emissions worldwide.

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux said the government’s proposed levy is insignificant against global oil price fluctuations.

Mr Devereux told the media at the unveiling of the Australian-built Cruze small car in Adelaide that Holden’s planned development and rollouts would not be affected.

“We have to deal with whatever outcome happens, but what people may not realise is that the car industry is actually committed to reducing carbon emissions, so we don’t have a preference (about whether petrol is included in a carbon tax),” he said.

“Lower-priced fuel in general helps people buy more cars, so to that extent I suppose you would like to see fuel prices low, but when you start talking about what this carbon tax would do – and I think the quotes out there are about an increase of six cents per litre – I think our eye should be on … energy independence and security with ethanol, bio fuels and LPG, because Australia actually has everything it needs for a lot more energy independence and security than it has today.

Holden center imageLeft: GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux.

“When oil prices can go from US$70 per barrel to $US140 per barrel in two months, then I think that six cents is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People hold on to those things erroneously. There are bigger things at play than six cents a litre.”

Mr Devereux also denied that a carbon tax would change Holden’s course in Australia, revealing instead that it might help promote more innovative and considered approaches that may actually work towards lowering emissions.

“Our plans (remain) our plans,” he said.

“I think that, as the new policies on carbon unfold, there will most likely be opportunities for all industries to be more efficient in how they create vehicles or mine things out of the ground, or generate electricity or refine petrol and diesel. It will be a fairly large equation.

“GM is committed, Holden is committed to making things in this country, and that commitment does not waver with these new policies in any way.”

Mr Devereux said that – as both Holden boss and president of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – there is ongoing discussion with both major political parties on the creation of a carbon tax.

“The good thing about it that there is a dialogue between the government and the industry as a whole, and to me that is the most important thing. It hasn’t always happened in the past, and bad things can happen when people don’t talk.

“So we don’t have any trepidation about policies. As business people, we deal with the pack of cards that we’ve been dealt and try to make the best car for people who buy our products and for the economy as a whole.

“We have to be pretty adaptable in this business. One of the challenges we have – and this doesn’t just apply to Holden – is very long lifecycles. New architectures require decisions made four to six years in advance, so what happens in between in terms of legislation or currency fluctuations or export demand or whatever does (require us) to live our lives being flexible.” Holden MD says impact on fuel prices would be minor, is keen to cut emissions

1 March 2011

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS

HOLDEN says it will support a carbon tax in Australia, despite possible effects that even a small petrol price rise will have on Commodore sales, because manufacturers are striving to reduce emissions worldwide.

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux said the government’s proposed levy is insignificant against global oil price fluctuations.

Mr Devereux told the media at the unveiling of the Australian-built Cruze small car in Adelaide that Holden’s planned development and rollouts would not be affected.

“We have to deal with whatever outcome happens, but what people may not realise is that the car industry is actually committed to reducing carbon emissions, so we don’t have a preference (about whether petrol is included in a carbon tax),” he said.

“Lower-priced fuel in general helps people buy more cars, so to that extent I suppose you would like to see fuel prices low, but when you start talking about what this carbon tax would do – and I think the quotes out there are about an increase of six cents per litre – I think our eye should be on … energy independence and security with ethanol, bio fuels and LPG, because Australia actually has everything it needs for a lot more energy independence and security than it has today.

Holden center imageLeft: GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux.

“When oil prices can go from US$70 per barrel to $US140 per barrel in two months, then I think that six cents is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People hold on to those things erroneously. There are bigger things at play than six cents a litre.”

Mr Devereux also denied that a carbon tax would change Holden’s course in Australia, revealing instead that it might help promote more innovative and considered approaches that may actually work towards lowering emissions.

“Our plans (remain) our plans,” he said.

“I think that, as the new policies on carbon unfold, there will most likely be opportunities for all industries to be more efficient in how they create vehicles or mine things out of the ground, or generate electricity or refine petrol and diesel. It will be a fairly large equation.

“GM is committed, Holden is committed to making things in this country, and that commitment does not waver with these new policies in any way.”

Mr Devereux said that – as both Holden boss and president of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – there is ongoing discussion with both major political parties on the creation of a carbon tax.

“The good thing about it that there is a dialogue between the government and the industry as a whole, and to me that is the most important thing. It hasn’t always happened in the past, and bad things can happen when people don’t talk.

“So we don’t have any trepidation about policies. As business people, we deal with the pack of cards that we’ve been dealt and try to make the best car for people who buy our products and for the economy as a whole.

“We have to be pretty adaptable in this business. One of the challenges we have – and this doesn’t just apply to Holden – is very long lifecycles. New architectures require decisions made four to six years in advance, so what happens in between in terms of legislation or currency fluctuations or export demand or whatever does (require us) to live our lives being flexible.” Holden MD says impact on fuel prices would be minor, is keen to cut emissions

1 March 2011

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS

HOLDEN says it will support a carbon tax in Australia, despite possible effects that even a small petrol price rise will have on Commodore sales, because manufacturers are striving to reduce emissions worldwide.

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux said the government’s proposed levy is insignificant against global oil price fluctuations.

Mr Devereux told the media at the unveiling of the Australian-built Cruze small car in Adelaide that Holden’s planned development and rollouts would not be affected.

“We have to deal with whatever outcome happens, but what people may not realise is that the car industry is actually committed to reducing carbon emissions, so we don’t have a preference (about whether petrol is included in a carbon tax),” he said.

“Lower-priced fuel in general helps people buy more cars, so to that extent I suppose you would like to see fuel prices low, but when you start talking about what this carbon tax would do – and I think the quotes out there are about an increase of six cents per litre – I think our eye should be on … energy independence and security with ethanol, bio fuels and LPG, because Australia actually has everything it needs for a lot more energy independence and security than it has today.

Holden center imageLeft: GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux.

“When oil prices can go from US$70 per barrel to $US140 per barrel in two months, then I think that six cents is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People hold on to those things erroneously. There are bigger things at play than six cents a litre.”

Mr Devereux also denied that a carbon tax would change Holden’s course in Australia, revealing instead that it might help promote more innovative and considered approaches that may actually work towards lowering emissions.

“Our plans (remain) our plans,” he said.

“I think that, as the new policies on carbon unfold, there will most likely be opportunities for all industries to be more efficient in how they create vehicles or mine things out of the ground, or generate electricity or refine petrol and diesel. It will be a fairly large equation.

“GM is committed, Holden is committed to making things in this country, and that commitment does not waver with these new policies in any way.”

Mr Devereux said that – as both Holden boss and president of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – there is ongoing discussion with both major political parties on the creation of a carbon tax.

“The good thing about it that there is a dialogue between the government and the industry as a whole, and to me that is the most important thing. It hasn’t always happened in the past, and bad things can happen when people don’t talk.

“So we don’t have any trepidation about policies. As business people, we deal with the pack of cards that we’ve been dealt and try to make the best car for people who buy our products and for the economy as a whole.

“We have to be pretty adaptable in this business. One of the challenges we have – and this doesn’t just apply to Holden – is very long lifecycles. New architectures require decisions made four to six years in advance, so what happens in between in terms of legislation or currency fluctuations or export demand or whatever does (require us) to live our lives being flexible.” Holden MD says impact on fuel prices would be minor, is keen to cut emissions

1 March 2011

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS

HOLDEN says it will support a carbon tax in Australia, despite possible effects that even a small petrol price rise will have on Commodore sales, because manufacturers are striving to reduce emissions worldwide.

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux said the government’s proposed levy is insignificant against global oil price fluctuations.

Mr Devereux told the media at the unveiling of the Australian-built Cruze small car in Adelaide that Holden’s planned development and rollouts would not be affected.

“We have to deal with whatever outcome happens, but what people may not realise is that the car industry is actually committed to reducing carbon emissions, so we don’t have a preference (about whether petrol is included in a carbon tax),” he said.

“Lower-priced fuel in general helps people buy more cars, so to that extent I suppose you would like to see fuel prices low, but when you start talking about what this carbon tax would do – and I think the quotes out there are about an increase of six cents per litre – I think our eye should be on … energy independence and security with ethanol, bio fuels and LPG, because Australia actually has everything it needs for a lot more energy independence and security than it has today.

Holden center imageLeft: GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux.

“When oil prices can go from US$70 per barrel to $US140 per barrel in two months, then I think that six cents is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People hold on to those things erroneously. There are bigger things at play than six cents a litre.”

Mr Devereux also denied that a carbon tax would change Holden’s course in Australia, revealing instead that it might help promote more innovative and considered approaches that may actually work towards lowering emissions.

“Our plans (remain) our plans,” he said.

“I think that, as the new policies on carbon unfold, there will most likely be opportunities for all industries to be more efficient in how they create vehicles or mine things out of the ground, or generate electricity or refine petrol and diesel. It will be a fairly large equation.

“GM is committed, Holden is committed to making things in this country, and that commitment does not waver with these new policies in any way.”

Mr Devereux said that – as both Holden boss and president of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – there is ongoing discussion with both major political parties on the creation of a carbon tax.

“The good thing about it that there is a dialogue between the government and the industry as a whole, and to me that is the most important thing. It hasn’t always happened in the past, and bad things can happen when people don’t talk.

“So we don’t have any trepidation about policies. As business people, we deal with the pack of cards that we’ve been dealt and try to make the best car for people who buy our products and for the economy as a whole.

“We have to be pretty adaptable in this business. One of the challenges we have – and this doesn’t just apply to Holden – is very long lifecycles. New architectures require decisions made four to six years in advance, so what happens in between in terms of legislation or currency fluctuations or export demand or whatever does (require us) to live our lives being flexible.” Holden MD says impact on fuel prices would be minor, is keen to cut emissions

1 March 2011

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS

HOLDEN says it will support a carbon tax in Australia, despite possible effects that even a small petrol price rise will have on Commodore sales, because manufacturers are striving to reduce emissions worldwide.

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux said the government’s proposed levy is insignificant against global oil price fluctuations.

Mr Devereux told the media at the unveiling of the Australian-built Cruze small car in Adelaide that Holden’s planned development and rollouts would not be affected.

“We have to deal with whatever outcome happens, but what people may not realise is that the car industry is actually committed to reducing carbon emissions, so we don’t have a preference (about whether petrol is included in a carbon tax),” he said.

“Lower-priced fuel in general helps people buy more cars, so to that extent I suppose you would like to see fuel prices low, but when you start talking about what this carbon tax would do – and I think the quotes out there are about an increase of six cents per litre – I think our eye should be on … energy independence and security with ethanol, bio fuels and LPG, because Australia actually has everything it needs for a lot more energy independence and security than it has today.

“When oil prices can go from US$70 per barrel to $US140 per barrel in two months, then I think that six cents is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People hold on to those things erroneously. There are bigger things at play than six cents a litre.”

Mr Devereux also denied that a carbon tax would change Holden’s course in Australia, revealing instead that it might help promote more innovative and considered approaches that may actually work towards lowering emissions.

“Our plans (remain) our plans,” he said.

“I think that, as the new policies on carbon unfold, there will most likely be opportunities for all industries to be more efficient in how they create vehicles or mine things out of the ground, or generate electricity or refine petrol and diesel. It will be a fairly large equation.

“GM is committed, Holden is committed to making things in this country, and that commitment does not waver with these new policies in any way.”

Mr Devereux said that – as both Holden boss and president of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – there is ongoing discussion with both major political parties on the creation of a carbon tax.

“The good thing about it that there is a dialogue between the government and the industry as a whole, and to me that is the most important thing. It hasn’t always happened in the past, and bad things can happen when people don’t talk.

“So we don’t have any trepidation about policies. As business people, we deal with the pack of cards that we’ve been dealt and try to make the best car for people who buy our products and for the economy as a whole.

“We have to be pretty adaptable in this business. One of the challenges we have – and this doesn’t just apply to Holden – is very long lifecycles. New architectures require decisions made four to six years in advance, so what happens in between in terms of legislation or currency fluctuations or export demand or whatever does (require us) to live our lives being flexible.”

[olfella]

Originally Posted by gunner

I think this hysteria about the loss of jobs, cost of petrol, end of Australia, etc is over the top. The PM hasn't released any details, all we have is the broad framework of how the tax will work. What seems to have been lost in the discussion (rants?) is that the tax will evolve into a carbon trading scheme which both sides of politics support. (Well they both used to support I really can't tell where Abbott sits anymore)

So like it or not we are going to pay for our carbon emissions. The whole point is to change our behaviour and hence change our economy from a 20th century carbon based economy to a 21st century alternate energy based economy. It may be painful for a couple of years but the long term benefits should (hopefully) be worth it.

I found this article quite interesting:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbo...301-1bcfy.html

OK, so the PM has not released any details - which send a shiver up my spine given the BER, the Insulation scheme, East Timor solution and a raft of other policies that have not gone well. So the question why release something when you have NFI of what it will include and a rough idea as to costs? The other 'thing' that bothers me is Carbon is not a greenhouse gas. It is naturally occurring and nature has a way of managing it. If this tax is bought in, who is going to pay for all the carbon following a bush fire?
It is just a grab for cash!! and if the GST was raised the same outcry would occur.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Holden backs carbon tax

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257846001880EC

Holden have to support the carbon tax. They are a mouth piece for the Labor Government. Did people think the funding and propping up of GMH was cost free for Holden?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

It is a complex argument, and comments like the one I commented on provide no value to the discussion.

It is unsophisticated smartarsery, not cleverly constructed sarcasm.

Currently there is no "price" on carbon. Which means that if you have two companies producing the same products, but one company pumping twice as much CO2 or pollution into the atmosphere, it makes no difference to the costs of the business. And there is no penalty for polluting the atmosphere. Which means you are encouraged to pollute, and obversely, not encouraged to reduce your emissions.

For example, if I manufacture something in my backyard, and dump the waste into your backyard, you'd expect me to stop or be compensated. But dumping CO2 into the environment comes with no penalty whatsoever

The idea of the carbon tax (short term) is to provide the price signal that pumping CO2 into the environment is not cost free, and to transfer those funds raised towards low polluting enterprises. The proposed program is not just taking money out of the economy, the proposal is to put all of those funds raised back into the economy. $x billion out, $x million in. The net result is zero tax, but financial reward to low polluters, and a cost to those high polluters. A cost that reflects the damage they do to the environment
That provides an economic incentive for all companies to lower their CO2 emissions. Not just cop a tax, but focus on how much carbon they use and to work to reduce that output. And it has the effect of creating jobs in the lower polluting companies and reducing jobs in the high polluting companies. Again, probably with a zero TOTAL impact on jobs. (But you'll only ever hear of job losses)


After the short term, this will transition to an ETS scheme, where carbon credits can be traded. Meaning low pollution companies can sell carbon credits and make their businesses more profitable (and grow and hire more people), high polluters will need to buy credits, increasing their costs, but encouraging them to be more efficient and reduce their costs.

What I've written I believe adds to the discussion.

Saying "the sky's falling in" adss nothing.

And I'll "move along" when I'm ready

That's a better response than the previous one.

Thanks for the input, a lot of that is new information to this discussion.

The only problem I see is where there is a monopoly (power generation), or where there are little to no possible reductions to be made, we will just have to pay the extra that is passed on to us as there will be no other company offering the same service with a lower output of carbon.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

It is a complex argument, and comments like the one I commented on provide no value to the discussion.

It is unsophisticated smartarsery, not cleverly constructed sarcasm.

Currently there is no "price" on carbon. Which means that if you have two companies producing the same products, but one company pumping twice as much CO2 or pollution into the atmosphere, it makes no difference to the costs of the business. And there is no penalty for polluting the atmosphere. Which means you are encouraged to pollute, and obversely, not encouraged to reduce your emissions.

For example, if I manufacture something in my backyard, and dump the waste into your backyard, you'd expect me to stop or be compensated. But dumping CO2 into the environment comes with no penalty whatsoever

The idea of the carbon tax (short term) is to provide the price signal that pumping CO2 into the environment is not cost free, and to transfer those funds raised towards low polluting enterprises. The proposed program is not just taking money out of the economy, the proposal is to put all of those funds raised back into the economy. $x billion out, $x million in. The net result is zero tax, but financial reward to low polluters, and a cost to those high polluters. A cost that reflects the damage they do to the environment
That provides an economic incentive for all companies to lower their CO2 emissions. Not just cop a tax, but focus on how much carbon they use and to work to reduce that output. And it has the effect of creating jobs in the lower polluting companies and reducing jobs in the high polluting companies. Again, probably with a zero TOTAL impact on jobs. (But you'll only ever hear of job losses)


After the short term, this will transition to an ETS scheme, where carbon credits can be traded. Meaning low pollution companies can sell carbon credits and make their businesses more profitable (and grow and hire more people), high polluters will need to buy credits, increasing their costs, but encouraging them to be more efficient and reduce their costs.

What I've written I believe adds to the discussion.

Saying "the sky's falling in" adss nothing.

And I'll "move along" when I'm ready

Nowhere in your commentary do you illustrate just exactly how a tax or ETS will reduce CO2 levels. Explain how imposing this system CO2 levels will drop.

[melbzetec]

Any business will try to reduce costs.

If the amount of CO2 I produce costs me money (because of a carbon tax), then I will attempt to lower the amount of CO2 I produce.

If I don't know how much CO2 I produce and use, and it costs me nothing to do so, then I'll pay no attention to it.

Now I will

That may mean:

It may be worth me spending $x million dollars to reduce the emissions from my factory because it will cost me 5 x $xmillion in taxes if I don't.

It may encourage me to invest in that new, more efficient, plant machinery I've been putting off, because it will allow me to lower the tax I'll pay. (Which of course provides jobs for those people building the new more efficient machinery)

Which of course generates a new level of demand for plant and equipment and processes, and encourages suppliers to develop and promote CO2 friendly products...creating more jobs.

And it is possible.

I know that Honda have now changed their processes and factory technology so that all their factories now produce no net heat. ie they add no extra heat (energy) to the environment. Much of that revolves around re-utilizing the heat produced (energy used) back within the factory for other purposes.

Businesses are predominantly logical.
If there is no financial benefit from reducing CO2 emissions, then they won't do it.
If there is a financial benefit to reducing CO2 (be it a penalty, or an income stream from selling ETS credits) then businesses will focus on it to grow their businesses and profits.

The tax (and finally and ETS) is about changing behaviour. It sends what economists call a "pricing signal".

[SB076]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Holden backs carbon tax

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257846001880EC

So Holden has no problem with any local suppliers passing on their costs incurred due to the new tax

[2011G6E]

Holden can easily meet stuff like the "average fuel economy" rubbish that The Greens would love to get in.

They just have to say "Here's the new Cruze...it's our new large car, we're stopping building the Commodore...talk to the Greens if you don't like it".
Ford could do the same with the Mondeo.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by melbzetec

snip.

Thanks for your input, can you please explain how a sme would cope with limited working capital and access to only few funds will purchase new equipment to try to reduce costs? If a business purchase new equipment it's because they beleive they can generate a return. A lot of manufacturers and farmers have been through tough times either gfc or adverse weather they simply don't have the funds to purchase new equipment. Not only that their overseas competition that already operates from a much lower cost base doesn't have the same burden.

[GOLDIE]

not one person or mp can tell me how they are going to stop buisness passing on the cost to the public.
They say low income earners will get some money back ok but that leaves small buisnesses and middle income earners they will have less money to spend so here we go again less money for the biusnesses to spend and around it goes.where does it end with people losing jobs then all starts again.

These fools running the show just dont get it 34000 green jobs will cost a whole lot more than that.

if they bring this in there will be more including one close to me tax on live stock and believe me it is coming.
Where do we recoup that as our wool and sheep are sold at sales so we cant increase our prices to recoup this or the extra for power and fuel.
To over come it we need more sheep we have the room for that except the greens have told us that the 1000 acreas we have cant be touched protected trees they say that is a 1000 acreas of cypres pine go figure.I can take anybody there and stay there all day and you will not see a animal or even hear one so i dont know what is protected.
So how do i recoup this huge tax i cant so like many farmers i will eventurly have to shut the gates and there is another family on the streets no jobs.
So the cycle starts again.


Ian

[colinl]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

not one person or mp can tell me how they are going to stop buisness passing on the cost to the public.


Ian

It will be passed on. It is a cost of doing business, like marketing or conforming to OH&S standards. I don't see an issue with that, the end cost should effect the total cost. The anomaly is that this cost isn't covered now, it is just ignored and this allows the damage to increase.

When we buy stuff we don't use price as the only measure of quality. We judge products on aesthetics, personal image, degree of customer service, product support, ect. This just adds another bench mark into the equation. Now we can use carbon emissions too. This of course doesn't offer much value if you believe carbon emissions aren't a problem. But if you accept the accepted view that they are, then there is added value to buying a cleaner produced product over less cleaner produced product.

As for sheep. At the moment they are exempt from the proposed plan; but even if they weren't, I'd suggest their price would still be subject to the normal supply demand scenario. I think you guys have it tough because your customer base is so small. I'm not sure about the wool side of things, but with meat I would think the likes of Coles and Woolworths would be the big buyers and pretty much control the market between them.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by olfella

The other 'thing' that bothers me is Carbon is not a greenhouse gas

Assuming you are saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas? Very puzzling, how did you arrive at your conclusion, basically its not a point under dispute from any scientist.

Originally Posted by olfella

If this tax is bought in, who is going to pay for all the carbon following a bush fire?
.

As I understand it the carbon tax is only payable for releasing extra carbon back into the biosphere , ie burning fossil fuels that were beneath the surface of the earth.

Originally Posted by olfella

It is just a grab for cash!! and if the GST was raised the same outcry would occur.

Do you really think any rational government would institute a carbon tax as a way of raising revunue when it is so obviously unpopular with a lot of people, if they need more revenue they can basically get it anyway they like, raise income tax, double camera fines, whatever.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Do you really think any rational government would institute a carbon tax as a way of raising revunue when it is so obviously unpopular with a lot of people, if they need more revenue they can basically get it anyway they like, raise income tax, double camera fines, whatever.

Yes, this government is doing exactly that. Why target income tax or double camera fines when they can go in for the kill. Mining tax, Alcopop tax, increase excise in tobacco and now a carbon tax. They've got nothing left to sell as most utilities have been sold off to the private sector. The government created a massive deficit, what other means do they have to repay the money they've borrowed?

What they're now tasked with is a sales pitch to convince the public this is the right thing to do. Most people will revolt when they realise the extra cost of living pressures imposed on the,. I've yet to hear the government explain how this tax will lower total CO2 output.

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by SB076

So Holden has no problem with any local suppliers passing on their costs incurred due to the new tax

I dont think a companies top guy, whose company gets a few hundred million each year from the federal Government, is going to be criticising the government too much.

As for the effects that a carbon tax will have on Holden, as far as i know, most cars out there run on fossil fuels. If it affects all, then it affects Holden no worse than its competitors.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Do you really think any rational government would institute a carbon tax as a way of raising revunue when it is so obviously unpopular with a lot of people, if they need more revenue they can basically get it anyway they like, raise income tax, double camera fines, whatever.

Given that the current government isn't rolling in cash (at least not since 2007) nor does it seem to have a very good track record of managing surplus budgets. Some people do view this tax as being nothing more than a great big tax.

However back to the topic, we're told this tax is inextricably connected to combating man made climate change, so therefore:

What is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

For some reason, this question seems to be unanswered but at the same time it seems appropriate to label people as deniers, gullible, skeptics, or claiming deceit, misinformation and so on.

Hoping you'll share your knowledge with the forum, thanks in advance, have a nice evening.

[burnz]

their is allways a debate on pollution..
if i changed my oil in my car and dumped it in the ocean, thats a big no no.
but if i burnt it in and engine (2 stroke, diesel) thats ok..

there is more water than air..

a tax will allway be debated no matter what it's for..

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

Given that the current government isn't rolling in cash (at least not since 2007) nor does it seem to have a very good track record of managing surplus budgets. Some people do view this tax as being nothing more than a great big tax.

However back to the topic, we're told this tax is inextricably connected to combating man made climate change, so therefore:

What is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?
For some reason, this question seems to be unanswered but at the same time it seems appropriate to label people as deniers, gullible, skeptics, or claiming deceit, misinformation and so on.

Hoping you'll share your knowledge with the forum, thanks in advance, have a nice evening.

does it matter?? are you trying to disprove mans effect on the planet??

planet earth has emphysema and has taken up smoking CO2,
and it appears it has lost a lung deforestation

[cheap]

Originally Posted by burnz

does it matter?? are you trying to disprove mans effect on the planet??

planet earth has emphysema and has taken up smoking CO2,
and it appears it has lost a lung deforestation

Actually it does matter.

What is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

What is the correct level of CO2 (parts per million) for the atmosphere?

For some reason, this question seems to be unanswered but at the same time it seems appropriate to label people as deniers, gullible, skeptics, or claiming deceit, misinformation and so on.

Hoping you'll share your knowledge with the forum, thanks in advance, have a nice evening.

For readers new to the thread, please read previous posts in this thread to understand my reasons for continuing to not respond to Cheap.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Do you really think any rational government would institute a carbon tax as a way of raising revunue when it is so obviously unpopular with a lot of people

no i do not

the mining tax were not that rational either

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

For readers new to the thread, please read previous posts in this thread to understand my reasons for continuing to not respond to Cheap.

It's a fair point he has. We're told there is too much and it is causing climate change. If they know how much is too much surely someone must know how much is ok.
Otherwise its a case of paying a 'Bear Patrol' tax.

[gunner]

Originally Posted by MAD

It's a fair point he has. We're told there is too much and it is causing climate change. If they know how much is too much surely someone must know how much is ok.
Otherwise its a case of paying a 'Bear Patrol' tax.

I could be wrong but from memory I think the aim is to keep atmosphere CO2 levels below 400 ppm (parts per million). This will give us a 50% chance of keeping temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius.

Current CO2 levels are 391 ppm. Source: http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

[MAD]

Interesting that the graph on that site doesnt show the exponential increase of carbon that we are all used to courtesy of Al Gore. It actually shows it to be an almost linear increase.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MAD

Interesting that the graph on that site doesnt show the exponential increase of carbon that we are all used to courtesy of Al Gore. It actually shows it to be an almost linear increase.

Gore's hockey stick was temperature and not carbon. Mind you the hockey stick was 100 years worth of temperature which made it look really bad.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

I dont think a companies top guy, whose company gets a few hundred million each year from the federal Government, is going to be criticising the government too much. .

Agreed

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

As for the effects that a carbon tax will have on Holden, as far as i know, most cars out there run on fossil fuels. If it affects all, then it affects Holden no worse than its competitors.

What is Holdens power bill? It will increase due to the carbon tax (overseas manufaturers may not have this issue depending on where they manufacture) A carbon tax will have an effect on Holdens supplier base,they will be unable to pass additional costs on to Holden, Holden will simply state keep the price the same or we bring the parts in from offshore, some suppliers will give into Holdens demands and take a hit on the bottom line others will simply walk away this will cost jobs.

Worse case scenario Holden realises its own costs have gone up (power etc due to the carbon tax) so it goes to its suppliers and asks for better pricing to help it compete.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Gore's hockey stick was temperature and not carbon. Mind you the hockey stick was 100 years worth of temperature which made it look really bad.

Didnt he then overlay carbon dioxide to show a correlation of CO2 and temp?
Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.



All the stuff I've read about CO2 levels and climate change have a common point and that is they all say things like "may increase temperatures" "might have an affect" "water levels may rise"
Nothing is definitive.

[trippytaka]

I am a firm believer in human caused climate change.

I am firmly against a carbon tax.

I am even more against Australia being first to implement it.

What would be better is if we diverted money from something like a super profits tax into developing "green" technologies so we could then sell them to the rest of the world.

It's not often I am on the side of the climate change sceptics, but the carbon tax is so flawed it's not funny.