Carbon Tax

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The first rule of the Uber Capatilist is sweat less and less whilst making more and more money.
Due to the laws of Physics someone else has to supply the sweat.

Ok sorry about that .
Carbon Tax basically means the Government charging Business when they produce carbon emissions...ie a Tax.

This will mean the Businesses that do produce carbon emissions pass the added cost onto the consumer.

But... those Businesses who move offshore the carbon producing aspect of their business will receive carbon credits which they can then Trade or SELL.?

So lets say a company in say Australia owns a Private coal fired Power station and several coal mines, they convert their power station to natural gas (fracking mined gas) then export all that coal in their mines to China instead of burning it in Australia.

For converting their power station they will receive carbon credits , there is no Carbon TAX on MINED COAL ..so in effect a Business who exports a carbon rich fuel will be rewarded ie carbon credits even though it will pollute the third world even further?

The Australian Government has recently allowed vast coal reserves to be sold to India including a 99 year lease on a coal loading terminal in Qld.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
there is no limit to the insanity of this tax:

Australian plan would cull camels for carbon credits
Pilita Clark
FINANCIAL TIMES
Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:35AM EDT
Pilita Clark is environment correspondent at Financial Times

Killing a camel to earn a carbon credit may seem a curious way to tackle climate change, but one country is poised to allow investors to do precisely that.

The camel culling plan is one of the first to arise under the Australian government’s new “carbon farming initiative”, a scheme that lets farmers or investors claim carbon credits if they can show they have cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Such emissions are plentiful in Australia’s desert centre thanks to the region’s large population of feral camels, a legacy of the herds introduced in the 19th century to help settle the continent’s interior.

More than 1 million camels are now believed to be roaming across the Australian outback -- one of the biggest camel populations in the world -- and each emits methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide.

“It’s one of those ‘out of sight, out of mind’ prob­lems,” said Tim Moore, managing director of Northwest Carbon, an Adelaide-based carbon project developer whose culling plan is one of only three proposals to have been accepted for official assessment by the carbon farming initiative so far.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Yes indeed asking camels to toe the line is another example of the ludicrous nature of modern Australian Political Thinking , as they continue to chop down more and more trees for Pulp Mills.

The next thing will be the "Term Carbon Terrorists" those who expel gas from their Bottoms without having enough carbon credits.

This wil be the tax that will see the Working people who are struggling.... sink not due to Global warming but due to the Nerdy Half baked Ideas of University Bred Politicans who were secretly lobotomised whilst sleeping off their Uni Party Booze ups....?
God save the queen , because nothing can save us against the Carbon Tax zombies.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
this first generation of carbon trading laws and regulations are indeed wonky and flawed. but it is a start at setting real costs for environmental impact, setting precedent for quantifying the dollar value of things like forests, stream, oceans, etc, instead of always pushing those costs upon future generations.

This is good for people and the environment upon which they rely, bad for corporations.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
this first generation of carbon trading laws and regulations are indeed wonky and flawed. but it is a start at setting real costs for environmental impact, setting precedent for quantifying the dollar value of things like forests, stream, oceans, etc, instead of always pushing those costs upon future generations.

This is good for people and the environment upon which they rely, bad for corporations.


Your argument is well stated , but some believe from experience its the new tax for the Rulers to maintain their wealth income , whilst constricting the common person and squashing them under the burden of poverty.
Do we really think the Corporations are going to be penalised in the real world?
The western governments are near bankrupt as the private sector such as mining are making untold billions in nations such as Australia selling to the rapidly emerging number one economic powers China and India.
IT IS A TAX< IT IS NOT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, they are in fact taking ownership of the ENVIRONMENT....think about it all please everyone , this is the con of the millenium.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


the people in charge of the project is what we have to worry about.

when the lobbyists and their loyal bureaucrats spend the money, it just becomes another earmark for contractors getting money from the System.
and a smoke screen to prevent the masses from seeing the actual problem.

not to mention all the new millionaires in the financial sector.

the Government allow clear cutting of ancient forest, but speak of the small trees that the carbon tax will plant.

we recycle our trash, but fail to study how to reduce its production.

recycled plastic, etc is shipped to China, the plastic pellets are then shipped back to the rest of the World, destroying our Oceans with polution.
the Sargasso Sea.

the dysfunction state of our society is due to the many financial,agricultural, phamaceutical,military,religeous,transportation, etc groups that have a common interest in the status quo.

to reduce pollution we have to address the chemicals people are using in their back yards.
instead i see our Government making municipalities spend tens of millions on cleaning the water before it sent to the river.

chaos is a huge industry.
much of our chemical production is for homeowners to poison their backyards.
and much of our pharmaceuticals is to poison the animals people are going to eat.

and the carbon tax is likely to become just another smoke screen.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
this first generation of carbon trading laws and regulations are indeed wonky and flawed. but it is a start at setting real costs for environmental impact, setting precedent for quantifying the dollar value of things like forests, stream, oceans, etc, instead of always pushing those costs upon future generations.

This is good for people and the environment upon which they rely, bad for corporations.


Your argument is well stated , but some believe from experience its the new tax for the Rulers to maintain their wealth income , whilst constricting the common person and squashing them under the burden of poverty.


While people might THINK that, it isnt necessarily the case.

Those who stand to be negatively financially impacted the most by carbon emission laws are large polluting industries, not the little man.


Do we really think the Corporations are going to be penalised in the real world?


That's the hope. Are you saying we shouldnt even TRY?


The western governments are near bankrupt as the private sector such as mining are making untold billions in nations such as Australia selling to the rapidly emerging number one economic powers China and India.
IT IS A TAX< IT IS NOT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, they are in fact taking ownership of the ENVIRONMENT....think about it all please everyone , this is the con of the millenium.


IT is both. It is a tax, yes, and it is also a way of implementing a 'free market' solution to protecting our natural resources. Placing a monetary value on Carbon emissions is a start in that direction.

Claiming it is a 'con' is certainly a corporate talking point. But it isn't nearly as simple or as one sided as you vehemently state.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join