Yes Lexi, puppets, & only sock puppets at that.

If I were selling a product to the public and my bottom line was affected by taxing/pricing carbon, I'd raise my prices while working within market constraints, as always. Prices for many consumer goods will rise under a carbon tax, undeniably, but consumers will be compensated with income tax cuts and other measures. Meanwhile, fellow posters, demonstrate some level of intelligence and get past the "big new tax" rhetoric.

More on topic, any topic with "Julia" in it seems to end up in the same sad soup amongst posters. a couple of points

1. She's PM, get over it.

2. Mr Abbott does not particularly deserve to be in her place.

Donning a truckers cap and joining a protest circulation of trucks around Canberra, and other such stunts including associating with witch-hunts, makes Mr ABBOTT a populist and less of a statesman than other contenders for the job. Compared to Mr Turnbull, Mr Abbott looks like a drovers dog looking for a flock. Aussies don't want rabid, unbalanced leaders. We don't want the Pines, the Howes and their ilk. Australia has moved past that. Anyone who thinks that a good old fashioned clear majority will re-establish itself has not read the signs. The issues are not that clear-cut and the electorate is more nuanced.

Go for it trolls, protect your turf, I'm done for awhile with OLO.

Luciferase
Nice rant, now do you really think the majority of us are in favour of a carbon tax?

After all, thats what this thread is actally about.

Now as for passing the tax on, this is how it works.

They pay say one billion in tax.

So, they then have funding costs, say 8% .

Then admin costs, say 3%.

So that 1 bill is now plus 11%.

Then you have to allow for lost opportunity of another 12%.

So all up this makes the mark up on that 1 billion, 26%.

Now to achieve a 26% margin, you must add 35% to the 1 billion.

With me so far?

So, would it not make better sence to simply tax the user the one billion and save the 35% mark up?

As usual, th government has gone about it the wrong way.

But, what lse could we expect from these incompitents.

Now as for tonny abbot, well im with you, i dont think he is a strong leader,however, thanks to andrew wilki and his support for julia, i think he will be PM come next election.

Unless of cause andrew does an about face and supports rudd.

This of cause is the problem she has caused by going to any measures to save office.

Meanwhile our country continues on its path of uncertainy which is the cause of the lack of confidence, which is the worst way we could be traveling.

Thanks!

Dear rehctub,

There's an old saying that goes something like -
"If you keep on doing what you're doing, you can't
expect different results."

We can't keep on polluting and continue to think that
nothing is going to happen to our planet. What the government
is proposing is merely a small step in trying to rectify
the situation - and encourage alternative energy sources
for our future. I can't understand why people scream against
new ideas. New ideas, instead of being welcomed for the
opportunities they open up for the improvement of the
human lot, seem to be threats to those who've become
comfortable in their ideologies .

In Australa in 2006, leading climatologists with our country's
pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were
forbidden by the organisation's management to publicly
discuss 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. It's not corrupt. Its science is
world class. None of this mattered, 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, the
Australian Government's position had changed - yet the
Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to
counter global warming.

Anyway, I feel strongly about this issue. Nothing but knowledge
is going to save the planet and the humans and animals that
live in it. The renewable technologies many of us get excited
about; the carbon-neutral lifestyles we aim for are the
invention of humans, and their success depends on an
understanding of them and a wish to implement them.

A better world is possible. It will take effort. It won't be
easy. But it will be worth it.

Lexi, now write this 1000 times.

CO2 is not pollution.

Dear Hasbeen,

I agree with you it's part of nature.
However, I invite you to sit
in a room filled with CO2, and then tell me
that it was good for you.

When the balance in nature is upset and the ratio
of oxygen to carbon dioxide is unbalanced one can
only imagine the catastrophe the earth will be in.
But I suppose for mutants - it really
wouldn't make much difference.

We know that as a result of the burning of fuels
and wastes and the razing of forests, the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily
increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse effect,"
on the planet, for it allows solar rays to reach
the earth's surface but prevents heat from radiating
back into space. The consequence will be global
warming, which will eventually cause the melting of the
polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and changes in
weather patterns. Even minor fluctuations in global
temperature can have drastic consequences.

Of course control of pollution is politically
difficult for the economic interests behind the
"smokestack" industries are a powerful lobby that is
reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task.