Hi Peter. To answer your questions:
- Many people here don't have any faith in the peer reviewed scientific process. To them any action on climate change is foolhardy. I'm not in that camp and don't engage in discussion about the science (alarmist or sceptic) after the evidence I've seen. It's up to everyone to review that evidence for themselves if they don't accept the peer review process, in spite of how well it has served humanity to date.
- Our emission reductions alone will not effect the climate but we are not alone. Many other countries are taking similar actions, mostly through other avenues than a carbon tax. I can only suggest reading the productivity commission report into this if you have an interest.
- A carbon tax is just one avenue to reduce emissions - there are a lot of others, some better and many worse in my view. In any case this is not a carbon tax after three years (turns into an ETS) and three years is neither here or there in the scheme of things.
- No-one is going to develop new technologies to save carbon if carbon isn't worth anything! Why would you? To provide any reason at all for someone to develop these technologies you have to provide a market for them. Either through a carbon price or equivalent means (i.e. banning the status quo for example as some here like the idea of).
- The carbon tax stimulates the economy nearly as much as it imposes (minus bureaucratic running costs). This is because it funds tax cuts in other areas such as tripling the tax free threshold. So while it looks like an impost the vast majority gets returned to the economy through lower taxes in other areas. Little new net taxation is actually involved as a result so our competitiveness is not hindered as much as some would like to think.
- As to whether the carbon tax works just in theory or also in practice, I guess we're about to find out hey? We'll never know if we don't give it a go...
- Many people here don't have any faith in the peer reviewed scientific process. To them any action on climate change is foolhardy. I'm not in that camp and don't engage in discussion about the science (alarmist or sceptic) after the evidence I've seen. It's up to everyone to review that evidence for themselves if they don't accept the peer review process, in spite of how well it has served humanity to date.
- Our emission reductions alone will not effect the climate but we are not alone. Many other countries are taking similar actions, mostly through other avenues than a carbon tax. I can only suggest reading the productivity commission report into this if you have an interest.
- A carbon tax is just one avenue to reduce emissions - there are a lot of others, some better and many worse in my view. In any case this is not a carbon tax after three years (turns into an ETS) and three years is neither here or there in the scheme of things.
- No-one is going to develop new technologies to save carbon if carbon isn't worth anything! Why would you? To provide any reason at all for someone to develop these technologies you have to provide a market for them. Either through a carbon price or equivalent means (i.e. banning the status quo for example as some here like the idea of).
- The carbon tax stimulates the economy nearly as much as it imposes (minus bureaucratic running costs). This is because it funds tax cuts in other areas such as tripling the tax free threshold. So while it looks like an impost the vast majority gets returned to the economy through lower taxes in other areas. Little new net taxation is actually involved as a result so our competitiveness is not hindered as much as some would like to think.
- As to whether the carbon tax works just in theory or also in practice, I guess we're about to find out hey? We'll never know if we don't give it a go...