579, why do large poluters pollute?

Th answer is simple, to provide a service for us.

So, if we reduce our usage, which means the big polluters will pollute less, won't that have the same effect but without the tax?

Now of you think that is not logical, please explain why?

Can you explain what we are supposed to reduce. Then i may be able to answer your question.

Hi rehctub,
Re your question, 'why do big polluters pollute?', i would offer another reason: because it's cheaper than not polluting.
Directors and senior executives are, by law, required to act in their shareholders' best financial interest. Therefore, if polluting is cheaper than not polluting, then that is what they will do.
In fact, i have been in management meetings where illegal actions were contemplated because the cost of a fine was such that if the company got away with an action for x months, then they would make a profit even if they were caught and had to pay the fine.
The accountant was perfectly relaxed doing the break even calculation. The ethics of the action were never even mentioned, only the profit impact.
If polluting is the cheapest option, then pollute they will.
Cheers,
Anthony
Www.observationpoint.com.au

579, simply by better planning of trips via car is one way, or, making sure the kids turn their lights off is another, then there are things like second fridges which are often not needed all the time, electrical items left on stand by.

All of these are quite common and can save on power.

Anth, I hear what you say however, power is only ever generated to suit the demand an, it stands to reason that if consumption is reduced, so to is production.

In any case most large companies are already much more efficient than they were ten years ago.

I know it's a hard one, bu why the tax, is all I ask.

The tax is there as an incentive to get off oil and coal or clean it up. Your power saving measures would be seen as penny pinching, xmas lights, street lights, water fountains, and trams running to pick up two passengers, and specially when the missus wants to use the clothes drier. Abbotts way is for the little man to pay for the big mans clean up. The tax is not going to cause any hardship unless you are one of the multy million $ company's that pollute. This is a very narrow based tax, with compensation for any add on costs to the consumer.

Hi Rehctub,
Hmmm, how to explain...
Think of it this way. First, it's not a tax. An impost that is paid by only a few hundred entities out of an entire nation cannot be called a tax.
Unless, of course, you are a ruthless, dishonest opposition leader who understands the power of memes.
You wouldn't call a speeding fine a tax, would you. The only people who pay a speeding fine are those who exceed a defined limit of behaviour. If everybody modified their behaviour and no one sped, (Speeded?), nobody would pay the fine.
Likewise, with carbon pricing. If nobody emmitted above certain levels of CO2, then nobody would pay the carbon price. However, if a company chooses to over emit (Speed), then they pay the fine, (Carbon price).
It's much easier to grasp once one accepts the carbon pricing is only a 'tax' in the minds of the politically expedient.
Here's another analogy. If a waste disposal company dumped toxic waste into a river, you wouldn't have a problem with charging that company to clean up the mess, would you. I certainly wouldn't.
All that a carbon price does is to make the people dumping pollutants into our atmospherepay to clean it up, via carbon pricing, or, as Abbott refers to it, via a 'carbon tax'.
The point is that we taxpayers are already paying for this pollution. For example, the rising inceidence of asthma and other breathing disorders is linked to carbon pollution. Sufferers get treatment and medication subsidised by you and me.
The thing to keep in mind is that we wouldn't tolerate wealthy companies polluting in other ways, so why on earth would we let them pollute with carbon emmissions? Right now, they're making the profits while we taxpayers pay for the clean up.
Maybe that's not a great explanation, but it's why I come down well and truly on the side of carbon pricing.
Hope it helps.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au