Socialist? Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk&feature=related
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mate, I never said I supported the tax, I asked for more information. Yes, I said that in theory I didn't have a problem paying an environmental tax if the money went to environmental causes.
I am mighty confused on the purpose of the carbon tax. Is it:
A. for redistribution to poor people made poorer by the higher cost of goods and services due to the carbon tax.
B. giving to universities and multinationals to entice them to cease with the conspiracy, and give up their secret formulas for cheaper non carbon energy sources.
C. shifting dirty jobs to the third world so they stop sending refugees here.
As others have alluded, I am sure the calculus of redistribution will require lots of progressive arts and law graduates with a penchant for face metal.
One thing that gets let through to the keeper with this BS about Carbon is what they are actually talking about.......
They are are talking about....Carbon Dioxide.
Now, I dunno about you, but when I breathe out, I breathe out Carbon Dioxide.
In case you don't know, carbon dioxide is what plants use to produce oxygen.
Has been happenin' for some 50 zillion years or so.
If you believe all this BS they go on with then you really ARE a penguin.
When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling.
I am mighty confused on the purpose of the carbon tax. Is it:
A. for redistribution to poor people made poorer by the higher cost of goods and services due to the carbon tax.
No, poor stay poor and are compensated and the middle class are taxed into the "working poor" status.
B. giving to universities and multinationals to entice them to cease with the conspiracy, and give up their secret formulas for cheaper non carbon energy sources.
What? Cold fusion engines aren't here just yet!
C. shifting dirty jobs to the third world so they stop sending refugees here.
Possible. The US don't allow more than 50k a year in for a reason. But I don't think it's like that...well, not here. It's about eliminating our manufacturing and processes into automated methodologies to further ram home the removal of the middle class.
As others have alluded, I am sure the calculus of redistribution will require lots of progressive arts and law graduates with a penchant for face metal.
Future generations will be laughing at the absolute stupidity of these current generations.!!.
It's also a question of what role Australia sees itself to be in. If we are seen to have implemented policy on the issue, that gives us a certain amount of power to persuade other countries. So, bigger picture, guys.
If you assume one agrees that carbon is a pollutant and is warming the planet then why should someone who pollutes a lot not pay for it.
The only problem with this is that over the last deade - it may actually be the last two decades - the temp has not gone up.
Oh; sorry - it did - apparently .1 of a degree. or was it .01?
Given that it is 3 degrees celsius right now here in Dromana, and in a few months it will reach 40 on the odd day, how would you even know it was .1.
I actually think the issue of climate change is very much like the issue of smoking. The cigarette companies denied all the scientific evidence for so long just as some corporations and politicians are denying the evidence that we are damaging our environment.
From what I've seen of other Countries' awareness of Australia, Australians and anything else Aussie - they pretty much have no clue about us, and much less care - unless they have been here as a tourist before.
It'll be a "feel good" thing for us to take this stance and that's about it.
And what will we tell them? "Put a tax on yer Carbon Dioxide everyone!"
Yep.
I have used this example here before but take the example of a smoker. If all smokers got $5000.00 compensation per annum but ciggerette prices tripled you would still see smoking rates decline irrespective that they still have the money to pay for them. They get to make that decision to either spend $45.00 on a pack of smokes or other things.
Where's the logic in Aussies being charged $45 a pack to smoke 10 a day, when we're passively inhaling 200 a day from the smoking of other countries; and 50 of those 200 are exported by us?