@ rehctub:

Carbon dioxide emissions are created in the production and marketing of consumer items, not typically in their consumption. You'll be taxed, and then you'll pass the tax on (and then some, apparently) to the consumer via the retail price. If you can find more greenhouse-friendly ways to produce or source what you sell, and what utilities etc you use, you then have a price advantage over those who continue to conduct business as usual.

Of course, in the case of a butcher's shop, probably the best thing your customers could do to reduce total greenhouse emissions would be to turn vegetarian. I doubt that many people would do that, but I'm quite sure that meat consumption per capita will decline as price increases relative to other foods.

Dear Ludwig,

Ben Eltham is an intelligent man and I hope that he responds to you
appropriately and answers all your questions. Did you read the
article and get anything from it at all - or were you only on your pet
peeve - population control? It's valid - but remember - this carbon
programme is only the first-step - we've got a long way to go yet -
however we should all be pleased that at least this first step has been taken by a leader with the guts
to do something despite the
well-orchestrated fear campaign
by Tony Abbott and the business lobby.

Lexi, I read the article thoroughly and then picked out the most important points that I thought I needed to comment on.

You say;

<< remember - this carbon programme is only the first-step >>

I hope it proves to be so, but I doubt it. I responded to you about this on another thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577#118566

I can more or less understand why the carbon tax is as it is, with a compensation package exceeding the actual tax. It has to be sold to the people to the extent that the government survives the next election so that the whole thing doesn’t get stalled, watered down or abolished by the Abbottomdwellingslimemould Liberals.

But I can’t for the life of me understand why the continuous growth factor has just been completely left out, given that it is just so important, and has recently been in the spotlight with Rudd’s Big Australia, Gillard’s denunciation of it and Dick Smith’s high-profile population comments.

Including a reduction in immigration, with a full explanation as to why, would surely have resonated with the Australian populace and helped to increase support for the whole carbon tax strategy.

Hasbeen said;
If silly little Julia wanted to do something about emissions, she
could switch our power generation to our newly found gas reserves.
This would be silly, but viable.

There was recently an article on studies on The Oil Drum about natural gas.
Taking it from discovery to burning it emits more CO2 than oil.
Not sure about coal.

Morganzola;
Your suggestion that businesses just carry the extra tax as
more overhead would be fine if the banks and government reduced their
demands in proportion.
It appears you have never run a business if you think your suggestion
would work. In a no growth economy it is going to be hard enough to
keep a businesses head above water without imposing your suggestion.
It appears from recent reports that Germany is one of the only
countries that will have reasonable growth.
China is plowing on with 9.5% growth but then that is a smoke and
mirrors vision, built on the back of decreasing GDP in other countries.

*You'll be taxed, and then you'll pass the tax on (and then some, apparently) to the consumer via the retail price.*

Morgan, if only things were that simple. As it happens, Australian
farmers compete with American and other farmers, who don't face
these costs. So the money will come out of their pockets, another
reason not to bother producing locally.

Best perhaps we'll just let you eat Chinese food, that should
be good for your health.