The Daily Wire: Gillard unveils carbon price details - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Gillard unveils carbon price details U-turn Julia runs true to form

Poll: Gillard unveils carbon price details (8 member(s) have cast votes)

Is the Hon Julia Gillard MP, a woman of principles?

  1. Absolutely and of course. (1 votes [12.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  2. Everyone can have a change of heart (2 votes [25.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  3. Whatever it takes, lete's just have a conversation with the people. (2 votes [25.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  4. Voted ROFL (3 votes [37.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 User is offline   Senexx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 19 March 2011 - 11:46 AM

There are a lot of loaded terms in here too such as wealth - money is not wealth

Everyone in this thread is just pushing their ideological barrow and does not have an open mind and does not consider the possibility that they may be wrong. That is how it appears. The ranter and ravers are not worth engaging. They may vote but they certainly live in a fantasy world on how the real world operates.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Support the Independents, Democracy always needs and requires a balance of power.

Counter Insurgent,

Deficit Terrorist Unit

0

#62 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 20 March 2011 - 09:31 AM

View Posticey, on 17 March 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

But where is this "promise" of a cut in excise (take from one hand, give to another) other than in the wafflings of the economist?

Where is the proof that every possible policy position for a carbon tax must cause the price of petrol to rise (other than the wafflings of the Mad Monk)?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

1

#63 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 20 March 2011 - 09:49 AM

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like economists who recommend market distorting taxes!

So you don't like the health insurance rebate then? That distorts the market too. Or are you going to nitpick and say that you love market-distorting rebates?

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist lecturing me about the climate!

Does that mean you also don't listen to Senator Minchin's remarks denying climate change based on the infamous right-wing 1998 El Nino cherrypick? Does that mean you listen to scientists who state with clear proof that the most recent years tend to be the warmest?

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist lecturing me about the real world!

Sounds like you don't like anyone telling you about the real world. All manner of people have views on the real world. Why shouldn't economists be entitled to their views too?

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist insisting that he should be allowed to redistribute my hard earned in anyway he sees fit!

That is a red herring. Governments do that, not advisors.

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist who distorts the truth!

You don't like Senator Minchin either? He distorts the truth too.

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist who bribes a portion of tax payers with tax cuts at the expense of others!

You must have been asleep during the entire reign of the Howard government who were quite infamous for doing just that, especially in election years. Furthermore, you are distorting the truth here. Garnaut is just proposing policies, not implementing them.

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist who labels emminent scientists as deniers!

That depends on whom the scientists are, and what their field is.

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist who supports big business against small business!

That depends on the circumstances, surely? Your point would be more valid if it was actually demonstrated rather than being an unsubstantiated bulletpoint.

View Postfonzie, on 18 March 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

-I don't like an economist who thinks imaginary green jobs will actually replace real existing jobs!

Obviously you do not have enough imagination. You need to do a lot more research into the potential for job creation with solar voltaics, solar thermal, geothermal, biodiesel and many other green technologies. The infrastructure does not construct itself, nor run by itself.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#64 User is offline   AlexSchlotzer 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 27-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 20 March 2011 - 11:10 AM

One of the biggest problems with the debate other than what Senexx articulated at the top of this page, is that it quickly became a mud-slinging match by the Coalition. First out of the blocks was the claims of the Prime Minister deceiving the electorate then came how the carbon price would automatically increase the cost of living beyond the means of middle income earners.

Instead of a reasoned debate, or even real alternatives being suggested, the issue was just dragged through the mud and bludgeoned on the way through.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

----
Alex Schlotzer
Visit my Blog about politics, online activism and social media.
0

#65 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 March 2011 - 01:22 PM

View PostBam, on 20 March 2011 - 09:49 AM, said:

So you don't like the health insurance rebate then? That distorts the market too. Or are you going to nitpick and say that you love market-distorting rebates?


Does that mean you also don't listen to Senator Minchin's remarks denying climate change based on the infamous right-wing 1998 El Nino cherrypick? Does that mean you listen to scientists who state with clear proof that the most recent years tend to be the warmest?


Sounds like you don't like anyone telling you about the real world. All manner of people have views on the real world. Why shouldn't economists be entitled to their views too?


That is a red herring. Governments do that, not advisors.


You don't like Senator Minchin either? He distorts the truth too.


You must have been asleep during the entire reign of the Howard government who were quite infamous for doing just that, especially in election years. Furthermore, you are distorting the truth here. Garnaut is just proposing policies, not implementing them.


That depends on whom the scientists are, and what their field is.


That depends on the circumstances, surely? Your point would be more valid if it was actually demonstrated rather than being an unsubstantiated bulletpoint.


Obviously you do not have enough imagination. You need to do a lot more research into the potential for job creation with solar voltaics, solar thermal, geothermal, biodiesel and many other green technologies. The infrastructure does not construct itself, nor run by itself.


Medicare as much as we all love it is the market distortion anything that comes after it such as the insurance rebate only adds or subtracts from the distortion.

I put the IPCC,Rudd, Gillard, Flannery, Gore,Brown &co Wong, Minchin and yes Abbott in the same politics only basket but separate and distinct from the scientific experts. How about you?

Economists are certainly allowed their view. Where I get concerned is when they pretend to be scientists and try to stifle debate with non ecomomic labels such as "deniers".

If Garnaut was acting purely as an economic advisor instead of taking up the political argument of the government then perhaps he would be less culpable in future government decisions.

Your identifying Garnaut the economist with politicians like Gillard a self confessed liar is suggesting economists should be allowed lie or that because he is like Gillard he is a liar????

So just so I've got this straight are you suggesting that proposing bad policy is not as bad as implementing bad policy?

He is labelling eminent scientists within the climate field as "deniers".

I would like for once for our Mr Garnaut if he is so confident of his models to tell us within a couple of thousand-
-His forecasts for steel and allied industry job losses
-His forecast for aluminium and allied industry job losses
-His forecast for manufacturing job losses
-His forecast for all other industry job losses

Then he can answer within a few thousand-
-His forecasts for solar voltaics/solar thermal/geothermal/biodiesel job increases

Then he can answer within a few thousand-
-His forecast for how many of the new jobs involve re-skilling.

Then he can answer how much of this green manufacturing wil be done in China and how much wil be done in Australia with more expensive electricity, steel, aluminium,building materials and transport coupled with a high dollar.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

1

#66 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 20 March 2011 - 06:37 PM

View PostAlexSchlotzer, on 20 March 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

One of the biggest problems with the debate other than what Senexx articulated at the top of this page, is that it quickly became a mud-slinging match by the Coalition.


ROFL. What, no mud slinging by Gillard et al? Pull the other one.

Confess your team's sins or I will be forced to spend precious seconds googling the news and rehashing some of the mindless rhetoric spewed forth by members & cronies of our hanging-by-a-thread government.

And fonzie, you forgot to pose the much bantered (though yet to be answered) additional question for Garnaut, "by how much will the world's temperature drop on account of Australia's proposed efforts", and "at what cost".
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#67 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 27 March 2011 - 08:52 AM

View Postfonzie, on 20 March 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

I would like for once for our Mr Garnaut if he is so confident of his models to tell us within a couple of thousand-
-His forecasts for steel and allied industry job losses
-His forecast for aluminium and allied industry job losses
-His forecast for manufacturing job losses
-His forecast for all other industry job losses

Woo! Job losses bad, the carbon tax must be the cause of them all!

Really?

What about the hundreds of thousands of job losses during the Howard Government in these industries? Are you going to blame them on the carbon tax too?

Job losses in these industries have been going on for years. You must think we're gullible fools if you think that we will accept that somehow the carbon tax is to blame for all of them.

View Postfonzie, on 20 March 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

Then he can answer within a few thousand-
-His forecasts for solar voltaics/solar thermal/geothermal/biodiesel job increases

Then he can answer within a few thousand-
-His forecast for how many of the new jobs involve re-skilling.

Then he can answer how much of this green manufacturing wil be done in China and how much wil be done in Australia with more expensive electricity, steel, aluminium,building materials and transport coupled with a high dollar.

Do you think that the job losses in Australian manufacturing that has been going on for years due to production being moved overseas is also caused by the carbon tax?

More expensive electricity is happening already. At state level, the Liberals privatised a lot of electricity assets during the last 20 years. Now, surprise surprise, the new private owners want to make a profit so we're now all paying more. Privatisation has done more to raise electricity prices than a carbon tax ever will.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#68 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 March 2011 - 08:08 PM

View PostBam, on 27 March 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Woo! Job losses bad, the carbon tax must be the cause of them all!

Really?

What about the hundreds of thousands of job losses during the Howard Government in these industries? Are you going to blame them on the carbon tax too?

Job losses in these industries have been going on for years. You must think we're gullible fools if you think that we will accept that somehow the carbon tax is to blame for all of them.


Do you think that the job losses in Australian manufacturing that has been going on for years due to production being moved overseas is also caused by the carbon tax?

More expensive electricity is happening already. At state level, the Liberals privatised a lot of electricity assets during the last 20 years. Now, surprise surprise, the new private owners want to make a profit so we're now all paying more. Privatisation has done more to raise electricity prices than a carbon tax ever will.


Why don't you admit you don't give a rats arse for manufacturing jobs in your quest for your make believe world! A line has to be drawn in the sand at some point, it has been drawn, and gullible fools is what you are but not for the reasons you think!
The labor party is making itself irrelevent to its base by pandering to the Greens and as a consequence both will become yesterdays news as they eat each other alive.

NSW electricity is still government owned and prices are going through the roof due to a combination of existing state government green policy, the expectation of a price on carbon dioxide and years of infrastructure neglect by state Labor governments.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#69 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 28 March 2011 - 05:10 PM

View Postfonzie, on 27 March 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

Why don't you admit you don't give a rats arse for manufacturing jobs in your quest for your make believe world! A line has to be drawn in the sand at some point, it has been drawn, and gullible fools is what you are but not for the reasons you think!

This does not address my point. Read my post again. How do you apportion blame for job losses in the aforementioned industries to (1) the carbon tax proposal - note the tax does not even exist yet and (2) all other causes?

View Postfonzie, on 27 March 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

The labor party is making itself irrelevent to its base by pandering to the Greens and as a consequence both will become yesterdays news as they eat each other alive.

This bit of wishful thinking on your part is irrelevant to my point.

View Postfonzie, on 27 March 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

NSW electricity is still government owned and prices are going through the roof due to a combination of existing state government green policy, the expectation of a price on carbon dioxide and years of infrastructure neglect by state Labor governments.

What has the newly-elected NSW Premier stated is his party's policy on electricity prices, electricity supply and privatisation? Or is this one area in which there is as yet no announced policy?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#70 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 28 March 2011 - 05:56 PM

View PostBam, on 28 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

What has the newly-elected NSW Premier stated is his party's policy on electricity prices, electricity supply and privatisation? Or is this one area in which there is as yet no announced policy?


I'm not too well versed on his policies (I gather he delivered a raft of them as KK was turning the lights out).

Did hear though that he was against the carbon dioxide tax that promises to might reduce global temperatures in the next 300 to 1000 years (according to the CC). That can only help energy prices.

Correction: Figures were for the whole world stopping all emmissions. Diveide above numbers by something like 0.015 (and in case there's anyone mathematically challenged, that makes the big numbers much bigger).
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#71 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 29 March 2011 - 05:46 PM

Did anyone pickp on Fool Flannery's "Letter to the editor of the Weekend Australian" where he deliberately lied to deceive and minimise the damage from his recent interview on Melbourne radio?

"The Australian reported correctly that I responded by saying that if humanity ceased emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would take centuries for their concentration in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial (1800 AD) levels".

No he didn't. He's lying. Here's what he said:

"Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Blind freddie could spot the difference, if they knew to look rather than trust "Independent" Fool Flannery.

What a crock!

Still, as today's latest ER poll shows, "34% now support the scheme and 51% are opposed". Go Julia, go!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#72 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 March 2011 - 04:29 PM

View PostBam, on 28 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

This does not address my point. Read my post again. How do you apportion blame for job losses in the aforementioned industries to (1) the carbon tax proposal - note the tax does not even exist yet and (2) all other causes?


This bit of wishful thinking on your part is irrelevant to my point.


What has the newly-elected NSW Premier stated is his party's policy on electricity prices, electricity supply and privatisation? Or is this one area in which there is as yet no announced policy?


Your argument equates manufacturing which has survived fluctuations in the Australian dollar, government policy, Chinese shenanigens and global downturns as purely an obvious and necessary decline in the number of low skilled jobs and ignores the advances made by businesses within manufacturing to compete with likes of China such as
-Upskilling and training of existing and new staff
-Moving to lean manufacturing
-Moving to niche markets
-Improved design and quality of products
-Improved service
-Improved sales and marketing
-Introducing more efficient CNC and robotic equipment.

A carbon tax (when/if it exists) by applying only to local and not imported product will attack these successfuly competing local businesses over and above what has happened already by
-increasing the costs of raw materials, transport, labor and electricity
-introducing an immediate shock and uncertainty to the market
-increasing compliance costs and government red tape

The carbon tax IMHO will be the "straw that breaks the camels back" for manufacturing and that is why I said before that a "line has to be drawn in the sand".

The arguments about government/ green survival (thrown in for a bit of fun) or who privatises what are side issues and not revelent to this debate!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#73 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 09 April 2011 - 07:42 PM

View Postfonzie, on 30 March 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

Your argument equates manufacturing which has survived fluctuations in the Australian dollar, government policy, Chinese shenanigens and global downturns as purely an obvious and necessary decline in the number of low skilled jobs and ignores the advances made by businesses within manufacturing to compete with likes of China such as
-Upskilling and training of existing and new staff
-Moving to lean manufacturing
-Moving to niche markets
-Improved design and quality of products
-Improved service
-Improved sales and marketing
-Introducing more efficient CNC and robotic equipment.

Ah, yes. The straw man debating strategy - when one cannot defend the opponents true position, just make up a position, pretend it is the opponent's position and attack that instead.

I did not say anything about those points that you are pretending is my position on this.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#74 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 10 April 2011 - 06:53 PM

This is storm in a teacup..taxes are a fact of life and every party imposes them. The Howard Liberal Government in which Tony Abbott served imposed a Goods and Services Tax and gave low income earners compensation for it. The Liberals claim that it had a mandate as they were re-elected, but the GST was ONE of the many hundreds of policies they put forward in their electoral programme so how the hell did they come to the conclusion that the electorate gave them a mandate. It's alright to say you have a mandate when you do it selectively. I could say in a pre election programme that I support bank robbery...but I will if elected cut taxes to nil....and I get elected I can then claim that I can start robbing banks as the electorate supported this.In actual fact however the voters supported the cutting of taxes to nil....you get my gist how these parties work their "selective" mandates now don't you?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#75 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 10 April 2011 - 07:20 PM

View PostBam, on 09 April 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Ah, yes. The straw man debating strategy - when one cannot defend the opponents true position, just make up a position, pretend it is the opponent's position and attack that instead.

I did not say anything about those points that you are pretending is my position on this.


What? your "true position"as now admitted has only been about job losses, nothing else and you did not say anything about those other points because you know expanding the argument to include all the factors destroys your "true position" and loses the argument.

You posed the questions and I answered them!

The only straw here is that stuffed under your hat!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#76 User is offline   Neil 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationQld

Posted 11 April 2011 - 09:37 AM

View Postfonzie, on 30 March 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

Your argument equates manufacturing which has survived fluctuations in the Australian dollar, government policy, Chinese shenanigens and global downturns as purely an obvious and necessary decline in the number of low skilled jobs and ignores the advances made by businesses within manufacturing to compete with likes of China such as
-Upskilling and training of existing and new staff
-Moving to lean manufacturing
-Moving to niche markets
-Improved design and quality of products
-Improved service
-Improved sales and marketing
-Introducing more efficient CNC and robotic equipment.


These seem to be very good arguments that a Carbon Tax won't affect Australian manufacturers.
Many countries are debating placing taxes and other restrictions on countries that don't have carbon tax type systems. What will that do to Australian manufacturers that export products?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#77 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 11 April 2011 - 11:09 AM

View PostNeil, on 11 April 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

Many countries are debating placing taxes and other restrictions on countries that don't have carbon tax type systems. What will that do to Australian manufacturers that export products?


A fair case of putting the cart before the horse if ever there was one. And at great expense.

It's just a carbon dioxide illusion we can't afford says one professor.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#78 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 11 April 2011 - 11:54 AM

View PostNeil, on 11 April 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

These seem to be very good arguments that a Carbon Tax won't affect Australian manufacturers.
Many countries are debating placing taxes and other restrictions on countries that don't have carbon tax type systems. What will that do to Australian manufacturers that export products?

Could you explain how my arguments are "very good arguments that a carbon tax won't affect Australian manufacturing"?

Until you name a couple of the few countries who have carbon tax type systems and the even fewer who then are prepared to enter a trade war with a greater number that don't (including the various resource rich countries on which they depend) then your claim that Australian manufacturers will be penalised doesn't stack up.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#79 User is offline   Amber Dekstris 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 11 April 2011 - 12:13 PM

View Posticey, on 11 April 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

It's just a carbon dioxide illusion we can't afford says one professor.


From icey's link...

Quote

What many people don't know is that the carbon tax will have to be much more than $30 a tonne to be effective.


This assertion is central to the author's thesis but the author doesn't bother to actually support it, with facts or anything.


Quote

that gives rise to carbon pollution


Not carbon pollution -- it's carbon dioxide emissions or, more broadly, greenhouse gas emissions. (Yes, the govt is wrong too when it uses the term "carbon pollution".)


Quote

The government is planning to allocate revenue from a windfall gain to permanent spending


Actually, a large chunk of it will fund a cut in company tax.


It's sloppy writing like this which annoys me -- the people who write it (eg. Sinclair Davidson) and the people who publish it (eg. The Australian) and the people who propagate it (eg. icey). If the sloppy rubbish was excised then we might have something mature to discuss.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#80 User is offline   Neil 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationQld

Posted 11 April 2011 - 12:27 PM

View Postfonzie, on 11 April 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Until you name a couple of the few countries who have carbon tax type systems and the even fewer who then are prepared to enter a trade war with a greater number that don't (including the various resource rich countries on which they depend) then your claim that Australian manufacturers will be penalised doesn't stack up.

http://www.oecd.org/...1_1_1_1,00.html

"These fears have led to calls in some advanced countries, such as France and the US, for taxes on imports from countries that do not adopt stringent greenhouse gas targets."

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1JBIKXgl6

A carbon tax at the border complements a domestic carbon tax according to French President Nicolas Sarkozy who is hardly a green fanatic.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Fast Reply