yes belly run away
things will work out fine
when the unionist takes over

lexie/quote..""new ideas instead of being welcomed...""

finding new guilt taxes is hardly new
finding a way to fix the problem..
by using other govt powers...is

but you cleverly ignore the truelly...*NEW
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4480

new ideas/"are seen by those who are comfortable
in their ideologies - as a threat."

i agree with you my dear

much easier to get govt
to put on a new tax

then suck/on the govt teat's
coorperate welfare

free solar cells for all those to whom $1000/$3000
is nothing...*compared to their bill

my $50 dollar power bill
means 20/60 bill periods..for me to get mine back
but for those abusing power with bills of 500/600 to a thousand bucks
its a bargin..

[and thats how govt works..
for those who know how to push its buttons]

like govt bying water back..[in a droudt]
recalling one billion..buys 2000 quality homes
for those getting the govt cash/grants or subsidies
[while whining about the dole bludgers not getting minimum wage]

and ignore the rich list
of miners..getting your resources for near nuthing
using borrowed money..and others labours/skills..to steal the peoples wealth

you believe the spin
its you lot that got ya ears closed

your hero said nothing will change
[except the climate will keep changing]..just like it allways has

the rich get richer
and the ignorant get dumber

Lexi,

As for mumbo jumbo, try "Discounting the future is one of the most common practices in the business world, and therefore we should confront the practice head-on."

Have you any idea of what "discounting the future" actually means? obviously you don't or you wouldn't write such drivel.

I work in a field where new ideas are generated and innovation is driven, and I can say that I have generated more than a few, saving or helping to generate millions of dollars for my employers.

However, there is far more to innovation than simply generating new ideas, one also needs:

1 A clear idea of what you wish to achieve,
2 An environment and people to generate new ideas and concepts,
3 A rigorous evaluation of the consequences of the ideas, and
4 A rigorous commercial and technical evaluation of the costs and benefits.

As far as the carbon tax is concerned Labor and the Greens are ignoring or covering up items 3 and 4.

As per my first post in the thread, below $40/t there will be no incentive to change the method of generating electricity, and there will be little to no reduction in emissions in Australia let alone the world.

Given the two speed economy, and a lack of global action, the manufacturing sector is really struggling, and for many of them the carbon tax will be the last straw, with their production and emissions moving overseas to less efficient plants.

So the benefits of a carbon tax are a minuscule, unmeasurable decrease in emissions, countered by the negatives of severe economic consequences.

This latest survey shows that the majority of Australians are not buying the BS that only the big polluters will pay.

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/

shadow..this issue runs along party lines
there are those who believe john howard is allways wrong
and the labrat greenies..union lefties..ran by bankers..are allways right.

there are as you said many aspects
how much need's doing to get how much cooling
and colling it how much..then what if we go too far..and we need to make it warm

thing is people are blind..[selectivly..and insultingly]
im a hollocaust 'denier'..cause i dont get the science..[not only dumb..but ignorant]

and they cant see labrats main attack is destraction
even with the budget its tony's numbers wont add up
so he dont release numbers..lol[learnt that from labrats]

we dont need to know the price...[trust us]
we dont need to know what SCEMES will get funding
we dont need to know who..to hold to account when its all revealed a lie..

we dont know who the 1000 collecting this tax will be
[the biggest poluters?]..ie the concrete makers..farmers/miners?

its funny how they can think aso clever
yet not see the scam for what it is

you cant argue with closed minds
and worse when they turn out wrong
the blind leading the blinded astray

then we get the guilty silence

and then..get back to name calling

tony loves big tobacco
tony is in the pocket of the miners

tony told us what he knew..
why cant you..[not you s*m]

Gentlemen:

Be aware that on issues which require radical solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and political interests, censorship exists today.

In 2003, Tor Hundloe was the first Australian recognised by the award of an Order of Australia for his development and practice of an economics in line with ecological reality and ethical imperatives.
Emeritus Professor Hundloe in his book "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," tells us that:

"In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly discussing the implications of climate change. Management was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human development status. Its science is world class. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report on climate change
(2006), the Australian Govertnment's position had changed - yet the
then Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming."

Hundloe tells us that "there is a tried and true way of reducing and, if need be, completely curtailing adverse environmental impacts:
taxation on pollution. Taxes reduce consumption. If high enough they curtail it. I am an economist. I have worked as a professional economist at the highest level of my profession (in both public and private sectors) and I have never met an economist, or read a report by an economist, which does not advocate pollution taxes as the preferred means of dealing with environmental harm."

Hundloe goes on to inform us that in the early 1970s - well over 30 years ago - the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended the use of pollution taxes. Over 80 years ago, one of the last century's most eminent economists, Pigou, called for the same thing. To this day pollution taxes are named after him.

Hundloe stresses that we as global citizens need to put aside our narrow self-interests and work together for a better world.

Lexi,

Before throwing the country into yet another expensive and punitive tax regime, could you stand back and say what the average Australian will gain from it?

SM,

Very simply - we can only hope that this will ensure the survival of our children and their future generations as well as the animal species with which we share this planet instead of becoming a dead planet like the rest of our solar system. If you don't understand that, then there's nothing further to discuss. See you on another thread.