Getting rid of the Carbon Tax
- Thread starter Dazz
- Start date
Thanks for that list....
I see that BHP have seven separate companies listed on that LEPID and Xstrata have at least 3.
What is to stop the accountants and lawyers of those companies simply "breaking down" those entities even further, to the point where the individual entities don't exceed the thresh-hold, and therefore not liable to cough up ??
Are we likely to see an explosion of 'mini companies'.....
I see that BHP have seven separate companies listed on that LEPID and Xstrata have at least 3.
What is to stop the accountants and lawyers of those companies simply "breaking down" those entities even further, to the point where the individual entities don't exceed the thresh-hold, and therefore not liable to cough up ??
Are we likely to see an explosion of 'mini companies'.....
Whoever spews more than 25,000 tonnes of black stuff into the sky is liable .
They know who they are .
And if management are not taking steps now to reduce emissions and taxes , that would seem negligent .
My reading suggests that a number nothing like 500 has been shortlisted to start paying the tax.
ps What's "negligent" about doing business? Why don't we all just take in each others' washing? [Or considering the forum "rent out houses to one another"?]
I would of thought we all do Neil...in our own special way ??
Unless you live in a damp, dark hole in the ground and never move, I reckon you contribute as much as well.
Let me know if you are in the ground, cos your "human rights" are being violated. There are programs to help that condition.
- I enjoy the lights on at night.
- I like a hot meal at night.
- I like driving my car.
- I like living in a house, especially in winter.
- I like using the myriad electrical devices in my home.
- I prefer flying across the country rather than peddling a push bike.
Unless you live in a damp, dark hole in the ground and never move, I reckon you contribute as much as well.
Let me know if you are in the ground, cos your "human rights" are being violated. There are programs to help that condition.
No, entities are deemed liable if they or the total of all their subsidiary companies emit over the threshold. If the subsidiary company goes over the threshold by itself then there is no need to go further up. If subsidiary companies are each below the threshold then the liability falls on the next company up the corporate org chart if the total emissions of all subsidiaries warrants it. Would have to dig out the legislation to find the exact provisions but that's the gist of it.
It gets tricky when subsidiary companies are held in JVs with other companies but it usually goes by shareholding % eg with Hamersley Iron and Rio Tinto. Haven't checked in this particular instance.
All explained here...
It's not a shortlist to pay the tax - whether you are on the list or not is not relevant to whether you are a liable entity, which depends on how much you emit. The list provided to date is only the ones they are certain about and there are no issues with being wrong! They would still have a pretty good idea about the others...
More Green propaganda. You do realise that carbon dioxide - the subject of this tax - is colourless?
Maybe they should have introduced a carbon tax in the UK in the mid-1800's?
Thank you!!
Call black soot pink if you like.
Dont care about the soot that lands on your car window in the city ? Its landing on little johnys head now playing in the city park. Green propaganda?
Some seem to be captured by large mining/mr moncton propaganda . He says pink soot is fertilizer . Agree with him?
Last edited:
Neil
You're not helping your cause. There is no soot from natural gas power plants and yet there is a tax on them. There is no soot from coal power plants with appropriate electrostatic precipitators / baghouses on them (the vast majority in Australia) and yet there is a tax on them.
Soot is not the issue...
Um....not sure how to respond to this ignorance...anyone care to?
It's a tax on Carbon DIOXIDE.
Small factor which seems to have been forgotten about.
This is where the whole argument is a joke; there have been fires on Earth for about a billion years...lots of CO2 from them...lo and behold; some billion years later there is still air to breathe.
And trees to process the CO2 - the more there is, the better they like it apparently.
Granted there are idiots clearing out the rainforests for pure greed, but the new replanting programs are helping, and our forestry logging programs are a huge change from olden days.
that would be carbon particulates and flyash?
didn't know they attracted the tax too....?
The trouble is in China they will burn as much as they like.
That is the REAL issue.
If by some miracle there was a world order and everyone in the works agree to the same Carbon Tax and it was enforced ( yes Fantasy Land) I would sign up now.
Instead we are sending job overseas
http://www.smh.com.au/national/canned-why-local-tomatoes-cop-a-pasting-20120526-1zc2q.html
And now our coal we no longer burn overseas here.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...-sale-and-export/story-e6frf7kx-1225786491851
An old article but some I cannot find the more recent ones.
The tomato one really hurts as I grew up in Shepparton and Dad worked 27 years at SPC. Why give overseas a free kick when they subsidize EU growers up to $450M but it OK because they have a carbon tax!
The great irony in all of this is that Cans of Food that could be made here and sent by train only 2 hrs are being made in Italy, using slave labour and shipped 10 days on diesel chugging freighters that then turn around and take Coal we don't burn to China so they can burn it to provide cheap energy so they can send back more Cans of Fruit back here to undercut the Italians.
AND because it is slave labour there is no tax paid and then Italy is bankrupt and the EU gives the world a GFC.
Yes, we need to act but the Carbon Tax is failure.
Regards, Peter 14.7
Peter - I don't understand the link you're making here. The demise of food processing in Australia occurred without the Carbon Tax. Carbon pricing makes little to no difference to this issue - it's just not an energy intensive industry and a 10% increase in the cost of energy will hardly touch the sides compared to what the Aussie dollar is doing and the differential price of labour involved.
You're really arguing for tariff walls rather than against a Carbon Tax? In which case, in this instance, I have some sympathy for your position. But I'm very aware of how great it is to eat such good quality tomatoes from prime tomato growing regions in Italy at such a cheap price. And I wouldn't be the only one to want that to continue... tariff walls tend to hit the consumer with much higher prices than the Carbon Tax ever will!
You're really arguing for tariff walls rather than against a Carbon Tax? In which case, in this instance, I have some sympathy for your position. But I'm very aware of how great it is to eat such good quality tomatoes from prime tomato growing regions in Italy at such a cheap price. And I wouldn't be the only one to want that to continue... tariff walls tend to hit the consumer with much higher prices than the Carbon Tax ever will!
no matter what argument there is, a carbon tax is still a (very) poor substitute for effective, non-interventionalist policy.
THAT is my point HI Equity.
The carbon tax is waste of time unless the rest of the world applies it. Surely you accept that? When Europe is paying $9 a tonne and China is refusing to even pay to fly over in the air over Europe, or actions only weaken us economically. And when our mines run out and/or the boom stops what do we have left?
The same way abolishing Tariffs is counter productive when the rest of work subsidies their growers. We paid Fruit Growers to pull trees out in Shepparton n 1980's because there was an oversupply in Australia and prices were too low only to find we now compete with the Worlds oversupply due to subsidies making marginal European Land profitable.
I would support large scale plantations of trees on the land acquired by the Fed Government as part of the Water buy back along the Murry Darling. Win/Win. Renew the environment. Refuge for Native Animals. Heat Banks in Extreme Weather. And if logged sustainably, housing for humans as the carbon is trapped.
What about new technology?? I work in Commercial building design and construction managing high rise building in the CBD and I can tell the report after report finds the best way to reduce carbon is not to use it is the first place. Many, many green ideas are not effective yet these are the ones the Carbon Tax proposed to support.
I.e. Waterless urinals that needs cleaning each day with water and filled each day with chemicals that are made with large amount of water which then enter our environment in sewers needing large amounts of water to break down to safe levels.
Solar systems that work (marginally) only in sunny days and cost so much that well before they reach payback they are rusted and worn out. Yet used huge amount s of energy to build and manufacture.
Chilled Beam AC system with no fans that don't work and don't move air so everyone puts in personal fans.
Recyclable Carpet that costs twice as much but get dumped all the same because no one wants to pay for the cost of transport and the only recycling is overseas.
My point is the Carbon Tax is like the above. Good Idea/s in theory but in practice don't work and we will all pay and to afford that we will import everything till no one is earning anymore. Even the Economists doubt the numbers...
http://www.theage.com.au/business/f...-fall-into-3bn-black-hole-20120508-1yb47.html
Regards Peter 14.7
Similar threads
