Why is the government taxing carbon without simultaneously discouraging consumption? Why doesn’t the government start promoting alternative modes of transportation for commuters in CBD’s—pedestrians, public transport and push bikes? How about a “Cars for Artificial Reefs” campaign?
And what about vegetarianism? Why don’t we have a “two days without meat” campaign—every week! Or “No Junk-Food Wednesdays”? What about scratch an “SUV Day”? Or, “No Spending on Sundays—what the hell, and Mondays”! Why doesn’t the government tell people to ignore spurious spending occasions like Valentines Day and Halloween? And what about if the government discouraged overseas holidays: “check out your local hotspots; camp in your own back yard!” “Go for a Walk”—more fun and less stress than a holiday, and cheap as chips! How about, “Despise Overpaid Elites Day”, or “Morally Bankrupt Bank Holidays”.
It’s about time the cattle, the consumers, woke up; all you’re doing is keeping the rich bastards rich—polluting the planet for them!
Why are we being taxed for consumption while at the same time consumption is encouraged? The powers that be live in awe and mortal terror of “Consumer Confidence”.
We would have far more impact reducing carbon emissions if we just cut consumption—and get far more pleasure out of life, I reckon!
The truth is that governments are between a rock and a hard place; they want to cut emissions “via” consumption.
How does that work!
I say let’s stop being pathetic meat chickens; let’s rediscover self-reliance, stretch our withered wings!
I can sense the stimulus packages arriving in the mailbox already!

Squeers, I have simply one thing to say to answer your point.

The fact that the government is actually considering terminating Solar rebates because they worked too well and got too many people to change their electricity consumption patterns- and as a result too few people were buying regular electricity feeds; in particular because they want to terminate it to accommodate a carbon tax/trading scheme! Because people not spending money on public-funded-and-owned (for now) infrastructure somehow magically 'costs us more' when we are actually reducing coverage and resource expenses to fewer consumers- but a carbon trading scheme is much less invasive, apparently (I would insert one of those laughing-smily face gif images here).
(source SMH)

That really speaks for itself that they're not serious about it at all- just trying to get something out of it themselves (eg more revenue) and paying lip-service.

Dear Squeers,

You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty. Good Thread!

The Carbon Tax is a joke partly because of what you raise Squeers. The idea that you can tax something and then compensate a group for the imposition and then argue it will make people use less. Only the other day Greg Combet suggested many people will be better off after the tax.

Governments balance commercial and community interests all the time - sometimes the two are interrelated. We have a skewed system that while acknowledging possible good practices ignore them for political or perceived world economic gain.

You only have to look at personal debt, surely it is a good thing that people are more careful with their spending so debt does not run amok, but when people pull back or energy prices go up, the retail sector is affected, then that might affect jobs, then there is the pressures of globalisation and FT, and so it goes on.

The system we live under has the ability to self-implode (GFC) and it is a constant balancing act. And yet people cannot yet see the need for an overhaul.

The balance has to lie somewhere between social democratic principles (ie. the collective good) and motivation/incentivisation mechanisms. Utopia is not obtainable but things appear to be heading too far in the wrong direction. Corporatism vs collectivism - corporatism is winning hands down.

Hear! Hear! Pelican.

Like the de-sal plant in Victoria - just another way to privatise essential services, but cloaked in "look, we're doing something about pollution".

Bollocks!

The carbon tax is like the mediaeval selling of indulgences. It doesn't stop you sinning, you just have to pay to do it. The fees are collected - in the name of the greater good of course - to a monopoly corporation claiming to stand for transcendental super-human values.

I'm not interested in cutting consumption because I don't buy the neo-Malthusian belief that just because we are faced with a scarcity of resources, therefore consumption is immoral, or we face an ecological catastrophe. I think it's just a re-appearance of religious beliefs that keep recirculating in western society over the centuries.