The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Swallowing a camel: carbon tax v income tax > Comments

Swallowing a camel: carbon tax v income tax : Comments

By Gavin Putland, published 11/8/2010

Replace the GST with a carbon tax.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I have no view on the economic merits of the proposal, but it does indicate how keen people with particular barrows to push are to embrace the AGW theory as the means by which they can promote their own particular causes. AGW credulists who ask 'Why would anyone want to make AGW up?' please note: they make it up because it serves their own private purposes, and those of many other people with profits in mind or reform on their agendas.

If AGW theory goes down -- and it will -- people like Mr Putland will have to find some other threat to wave in the hope of promoting their causes. In the meantime they hope to make hay while the sun shines -- so to speak.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 8:12:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J. On what basis do you reject GW as a personal barrow?
You see I work with the BOM and CSIRO on climate science related issues and it is precisely because there is an international consensus that the issue has persisted for the last decade or more. Science is inherently sceptical...it is built into the process. There is *no way* that conspiracy, or more likely group-think could perpetuate this around the world in both public and private industry and competing countries. Unlike the Iraq war lies, the media is hostile and only the fact that science *works* and has respectability has allowed to to compete against the relentless anti-truth movements.
Science, unlike economics and politics, is transparent and evidence based. Rather than assuming a world-wide geek conspiricy...could it be that instead there is evidence of a real problem? Doesn't the unprecedented nature of recent weather (such as Russia's 1st in 1000 year heat wave) ring any alarm bells?
If not then I'd say your attitude is more faith and/or personality based. (and good luck with that!)
As for economics: So long as rent seeking investors are allowed to make "profits" on infrastructure our grandparents paid for (the privatised power grid as an e.g) and hold up modernisation...the problem will persist. The failure to maintain, let alone improve our grid reflects the experience in the US where profit based utilities have resulted in reduced reliability without *any* long term investment.
Remember one man's cost is another's profit, one industry job lost in coal is another in green power. The power of the incumbents combined with the bias and incompetence of the press will continue to muddy the waters, but transition to a modern energy economy must happen. Maybe we'll have to wait until the BB gen is paid for (again), but it will happen regardless.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 8:53:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ozandy,

"Don't feed the trolls." If AGW is bunk, and if a carbon price is a solution in search of a problem, then we still need to discuss how to avoid or compensate for the economic damage caused by a carbon price, just in case it becomes reality. That's what my article does. So for present purposes there's no need to argue with AGW deniers. (But, as a matter of idle curiosity, I'm not an AGW denier.)
Posted by grputland, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:06:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ozandy,

Gosh! weren't you among the people telling us six months ago, during the coldest Canadian and European winter in decades, that 'climate is not weather'? And yet, when the weather gets hot you are quick to embrace it as 'evidence' of AGW. Perhaps the phrase should read 'Climate is not weather, unless it is expedient for it to be so'.

Your 'conspiracy' is a straw man. Nobody is claiming that thousands of scientists have got together to fabricate AGW claims. But I have worked in science too, and I know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. With an estimated $US79 billion dollars available in government grants to 'study' global warming, it's a rare scientist who is going to turn down that opportunity just for the inconvenient reason that the phenomenon doesn't exist. All the paymasters have to do is apply some selection to what gets published, and what gets relegated to the archives of the university library, to produce a spurious 'consensus'. We have written evidence of them doing exactly that.

And why do governments promote AGW theory? Because spreading fear gives them power. Plenty of examples of THAT in Australian political history.

As for the Russian weather, you must not have been reading Watts Up With That -- the most popular climate science blog, by the way; you really should have a look at it -- in particular

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/07/world-weather-roundup

You could read up on the record ice coverage in Antarctica and the freezing conditions that have killed millions of cattle in South America while you are at it.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 9:24:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
11 08 10

It is real, near palpable, that the Schools of Economics, and there is one of them in nearly all Universities around the world, disgorge graduates in that discipline by the hundreds if not thousands, every academic year.

These are knowledgeable individuals that are to be fed, clothed and amused.

Not clear is where the economy of this world can find the resources to supply their needs.

Another pertinent question comes to mind. Is homo-economicus profitably served by the phenomenon of an army of economists?

Or, rephrasing the question,: Is the world with an army of Economists more equitable than the world before The London School of Economics came to be?
Posted by skeptic, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 10:14:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly Gavin did not bother to tell us why we would want a carbon tax. Probably has no idea, except that it would offer lots of good jobs for economists.

Ozandy has confirmed what I have always thought, he's on the gravy train. I wonder if he is too dumb to realise what a crock the whole thing is, or if he just doesn't care.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of these economists, mostly "educated" at considerable public expense, tried to do something useful, like show governments how to get along on less tax, rather than ways to maximize the take, with least chance of that costing the current lot the next election.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 11:27:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you are saying we should change from the last decade's method of meeting our carbon emissions reductions targets, i.e. by stealing carbon credits from unsuspecting Australian farmers. Stealing from farmers who were also doing it tough with the drought, seemed like a workable solution to meet our international commitments and not upset the vast majority of voters.

Whilst the city folk were out buying plasma televisions, our great leaders Howard and Rudd were crucifying our food producers and parading as international statesman and carbon gurus.

The whole point of persecuting one small group was to basically keep the larger group 'the urban voter', completely in the dark about how an ETS / CPRS / carbon tax or carbon trading would one day come and bite them in the bum. It's interesting that the GST was introduced at a time when the issue of carbon trading was also on the table.

The crunch time has arrived with this election. Suprizingly, we've now had a taste of this new carbon world in the form of rising electricity prices. If the electorate manages to sleep through this election campaign and give yet more power to the Greens which are the primary lobbyist for their pain, they will only have themselves to blame.

Don't turn your protest vote into a self inflicted permanent injury. Climate change has been occurring since the beginning of time. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about late 20th Century warming, except that you are viewing it on a wide screen.
Posted by CO2, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 5:19:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it's way past time to make a decision on this -like a decade past time. Like with the republican debate, we'll all end up not getting what we want because those who don't want action of any sort will have the ETS people too busy fighting the direct tax people fighting the 'lets revamp the whole tax system' people fighting the direct action people and 450 ppm will pass with Australia still building coal plants and more coal mines. And coal seam gas and natural gas and shale oil projects.

The misinformed 3D'ers that spout unchecked untruths as standard practice (Canada had it's warmest and driest winter on record BTW - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/canada-winter-2009-2010-warmest-driest-on-record.php#ch01 - remember the trucks carrying snow to the winter Olympics? Overall +4 degrees C but some parts were as much as +7.5 degrees C above average!) will no doubt cheer this victory by default over science based policy.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 13 August 2010 11:36:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In case anyone thinks the link I provided above represents a 'treehuggers' distorted version of data for Canada - the original can be found at http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C03D32A-1

Meanwhile Europe continues a long term trend of warmer winters (and warmer summers and springs and autumns) and even if the most recent winter was cooler than the previous decade(ever heard of natural variation?) it wasn't enough to reverse or even particularly slow that trend - Europe continues to show warming greater than the global average. It certainly doesn't represent the imminent global cooling we've been told about for a couple of decades now by 3D'ers but that has yet to show any sign of arriving.
FWIW Europe data is here for those who prefer fact over assertion - http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature/global-and-european-temperature-assessment-3

I can't be bothered checking every 'fact' Jon J (and others) presents. Given that his version - "the coldest Canadian and European winter in decades" - is, with respect to Canada, the complete opposite of the truth and with respect to Europe, highly misleading, I suggest people be deeply sceptical of (ie go and check) his utterances
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 13 August 2010 12:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree JonJ… a solution looking for a problem

And the problem with that is

The inevitable intervention of

“The law of unintended consequences”

Any new tax, even if there is merit in it… like GST replacing the “whores breakfast” of Aussie Sales Tax and VAT replacing the old UK Purchase tax will always face elector resistance, the suspicion and cynicism of taxpayers, having been raped in the past, maybe.

But lets face it,

a carbon tax in any form, is not based on auditable results or influences – unlike direct taxes
It is not associated with specific goals – unlike FBT (one of the most regressive and inefficient taxes ever inflicted upon an electorate)
But at least its “application” and its “benefits match – they are both “theoretical” and not “Factual”, “Actual” or “Auditable”

And the benefit is, supposedly, to achieve a "theoretical outcome", to which Australia is an insignificant contributor or influence.

I can advise the most likely result of this tax….

That, regardless of all the hype, hand wringing and emotional chest beating,

A carbon tax will fail because

Its only impact will be to reduce the life quality of Australians by denying / reducing their discretionary income;

Whilst simultaneously reducing Australian employment opportunities (don’t tell me the green industries employ people… they do… but at half the hourly rate of real jobs);

And because of the contraction of domestic demand, reduce Australian trade competitiveness through reduced price flexibility in other markets.

All of which makes it a pretty negative proposal which will go nowhere


But at least Gavin is prepared to put forward his ideas and I thank him for that.


I see my fellow thinker, hasbeen, has made similar, sensible comment and sound observation to any electoral desire.

Ken Fabos, I know where your coming from, the opposite direction to me


As one of those supposed “The misinformed 3D'ers” (although the ‘3’ intrigues me, maybe Kens phone service)


Spouting of “unchecked untruths as standard practice”


The Trotskyite and leftwing extremists, who infiltrated AGW zealots have a monopoly there.

I am simply "sceptical"
Posted by Stern, Saturday, 14 August 2010 10:25:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy