By: pfitzy1980
18/07/2008
5:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pfitzy1980 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The credits that you speak of may not be terribly plentiful one would think. The only way one can get credits is be issued them by the govenment (as has already been indicated for high polluting industries subject to international trade), buy them which is what you are talking about or actually capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere (forestry etc). Simply by producing something environmentally friendly or creating renewable energy would not get you credits. The only advantage these people have is that they won't have to buy the credits as they aren't emitting so they may have a lower cost in producing their product.
I beleive that the end intention is to only have enough credits in the market so as to reduce the pollution to the required level and you can't actually just pay the government a tax and they hope the market will be international. |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
18/07/2008
5:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Fair enough seabird, as I said I wasn't aware of what facts were out there. |
|
By: beachgolfer62
18/07/2008
4:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
beachgolfer62 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Ecchi, Youre right the big polluters would have to buy the tax credits at a cheaper price than the actual carbon tax, but I don't think they would have any problem there.
Depends on the greed of those with all those nice offset credits.
Unless of course the Government sets parity between the two or better still tax credits must be traded for more than carbon tax
The way I see it the burden of paying the tax is more likely to inspire them to clean up their act (pressure likely both from shareholders and government) however the buying of offset credits may simply become another line in the P&L |
|
By: seabirdauau
18/07/2008
4:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
ecchiman hidden and forgotten by many, sitting just north of our borders, is an oft overlooked, small in area, moslem nation of some 250 million (or more) inhabitants that rates as one of, if not THE, highest CO2 emitting countries of this wonderful planet.
It has always been my contention that the principal, and I mean major, contribution to the so called ozone layer holes in our end of the field rest with Indonesia and not, as our politicians and greens blame, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Nations.
I have yet to see a deluge of Indonesian manufactured goods - just what are they and where do the go - these contributors to the ozone hole? Are we afraid of the largest moslem nation in the world who we are always extremely pleasant to and rarely take to task on any disturbing matter?
I repeat in total my last post and reiterate, discard any thoughts of an carbon tax and turn instead to alternate power sources. Thus reduce fuel costs for isn't that what we are all about? |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
18/07/2008
4:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Depending on the respective costs of tax and tax credits, wouldn't that be pretty much self defeating though? |
|
By: beachgolfer62
18/07/2008
4:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
beachgolfer62 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Seabird, one step Ecchi left out is that those who accumulate tax credits can sell them to industries or companies incurring carbon tax.
Therefore providing a high polluting industry can pass on costs to their customers they have no need to reduce their emissions but simply buy credits from others and pass the cost onto their customers. |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
18/07/2008
2:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Australia's open spaces, relatively minor and anyway spread CO2 disbursal that we in fact do not require a carbon tax or such dramatic conditioning"
From a lamans point of view, as I am unaware of any research pointing to the actual source, I would expect that the hole in the ozone layer is an example of how someone so small as Australia can cause so much damage. |
|
By: seabirdauau
18/07/2008
2:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Thanks itchy clear and concise and I know coming from you -right - or close enuff for me. Carbon credits was the main area of my lack of understanding.
An argument I read recently debunks the "G" man's submission and the Governments thinking, reasoning Australia's open spaces, relatively minor and anyway spread CO2 disbursal that we in fact do not require a carbon tax or such dramatic conditioning especially as the cost appears to flow onto the end user - US - when the cause is the manufacturers etc etc. If put in place surely it is best the cause carries the costs even to the detriment of their shareholders?
We tend to forget we Aussies are a minor player in this world and while our pollies and do-gooders spout off at every opportunity, and without invitation, rarely are we listened to or our advice acted on. Time we became more insular and tended more our home pasture to our own benefit.
Sure electric and the such vehicles, power from wind and tide must be promoted in Australia and much more money expended in these areas rather than in politically promotional Carbon taxes promulgated to enhance "our" political chest pounding to the world.
No way will any carbon tax reduce the spiraling cost of fuel. So drop it and look to foster alternative fueling methods not taxes |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
18/07/2008
9:30 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Seabird, I have nto looked into the intricacies of the proposal here but my understandong conceptually is this. Different industries are taxed based on their CO2 output, this of course will be passed on to the end user. In the case of petrol the gov may decide to disband the current fuel excise (but this is not a given). Considering the current problems with fuel prices I would expect the carbon tax to replace the excise though. I think there is also a related system whereby you can obtain "carbon credits" by having envirnmentally friendly products/services, these credits could then be used to offset against any carbon taxes.
Again, the above is only my understanding of the carbon tax in principle. But if you want it in a nutshell, it is a tax imposed on carbon emitting products/services intended to reduce the use of such products/services. |
|
By: seabirdauau
17/07/2008
8:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Here's a test for you itchy. Could you, or rather would you, for the uneducated (seabird), BRIEFLY explain just what this CARBON "TAX" is.
I read so many conflicting articles, even the "G" man's, yet I cannot see a clear pitcha.
The pros and cons of argument I comprehend but with what the actual tax implications are I fail miserably. I don't want to know who gains or suffers just an overall view of what the Government intends to legislate. That Minister Wong is just as verbose as I am - I hope she is capable and Wright? |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
17/07/2008
6:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I believe you are missing the point, currently (fuel excise) and eventually carbon tax are there for the specific reason to reduce the consumption of the product. If the government just wanted to raise revenue they just get it from income taxes. The discussion is here becuase the discussion is about petrol prices and in particular carbon tax, which is an environmental policy. There really is no use discussion a taxation if you choose to disregard the reason it is there. |
|
By: sashaspiron@y7mail.com
17/07/2008
6:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
sashaspiron@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Message Board Subject " Petrol Price"
The transfer of one form of Tax to another will not reduce the bottom line cost of running your motor vehicle.
The implementation of a new Tax will effectively result in higher costs of motor vehicle prices & operating costs.
Remove the current obscure Taxes- yes , plural - in the overall cost of fuel, & maintain ONE fixed Tax. Eg, G.S.T.
Environmental & General Economy issues are discussed on other sites. |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
17/07/2008
10:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Perhaps you would care to explain how the Rudd Government's implementation of a "Carbon Tax" is going to reduce the price of gasoline in Oz?
Where do you get the idea that this is the intention? Cheaper petrol is only a short term benefit, a cleaner environment is (arguably) a long term benefit.
As for sending the country further into a recession, look at it this way.
NB I am using irrelevant numbers just for demonstration purposes so please don't waste comments on their inaccuracy
current budget = $100 bil revenue - $80 bil expenditure = $20 bil surplus
After implimenting carbon tax their revenue will increase providing 2 alternative outcomes
1) they reduce revenues from other areas and maintain a similar overall budget
2) they spend more money and thereby increase our standard of living
Which of these alternatives is the negative that you portray? |
|
By: sashaspiron@y7mail.com
17/07/2008
12:35 am Yahoo! Profile:
sashaspiron@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Seabird,there are plenty of other Boards to partake in general chit-chat or personal criticism.
Perhaps you would care to explain how the Rudd Government's implementation of a "Carbon Tax" is going to reduce the price of gasoline in Oz?
This is only going to pass on any reduction in gas prices to other basic necessities. A mere "Plot" of deception!
Just watch the price of electricity take off faster than a Space Shuttle launch !!
Yet there will be little, or no reduction in Carbon "pollution".
Without an exemption, your Power Supply producer will simply cut back on production & increase prices. You will then be faced with consumption restrictions, the same as water, particularly in Victoria.
Your government is only attempting to divert attention away from the real issues & transfer one Tax to another Tax, perhaps called a "Levy" ? But you will be hard pressed to save any money.
The long term effect will be higher prices all round, your economy heading further into Recession.
I would also be interested in your opinion of how any Tax -the collection of money from individuals - will reduce "Carbon" pollution? Reduction in consumption?
Perhaps they should start turning off lights in Parliment, confine their "Chit-Chat" to daylight hours.I feel confident that this would be a positive start to reducing all types of costs & pollution ! |
|
By: seabirdauau
16/07/2008
9:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Thanks sasha but can't long time protagonists partake in a little off topic exchange? If you care to research this board you will discover Petrol Pricing comes to the fore in our discussions!
Strange that sasha? I can't find a single contribution to you on this board anywhere?
Lost your pencil? |
|
By: seabirdauau
16/07/2008
9:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hey okay itchy but in the instant used "drivel" was a noun?
I wont progress "redundant, no?" as it appears to diatribe me no matter how descriptive I found the mix. (How's that for verbal diarrhea)
Despite all our efforts, were there really any (?), fuel prices continue their upward spiral.
I read many more vehicle manufacturers are coming up with electric cars, a solution I consider to have considerable merit. BUT, and that's a big BUT, will the car manufacturers, oil companies, governments, unions, buyers and who ever else, actually look forward to these hitting the market quickly, at acceptable prices,running costs, economy, convenience and comfort?
I wish I was confident that battery manufacturers had "in hand" an acceptable product both light, long lasting and generally efficient capable of attaching easily to their meager electricity using recharge facility.
Get real seabird! |
|
By: sashaspiron@y7mail.com
16/07/2008
8:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
sashaspiron@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You completly fail to address the topic here. Petrol price is the discussion. Not the English language !
You are simply falling into the set trap of being diverted from the Real Issue, into personal attacks.
Perhaps you are a Politician ? |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
16/07/2008
7:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I am no english expert myself so I go by what sounds correct. On it's own, no problem but the use of a second adjective made it sound incorrect. If I am wrong by all means many apologies.
But no matter which version you prefer, they both would be redundant, no? :P |
|
By: seabirdauau
16/07/2008
5:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
itchy scratchy: grumpy here. Just a small correction:
"Unintelligible (adjective) Poorly articulated or enunciated. Not clearly understood or expressed."
Seems to fit the bill and possibly you owe me an apology for your error(s)?
Yes I may be perverse and irritable at times but only in an attempt to engender postings that encourage a certain level of discussion. Surely you must admit that pol-pot's messages, tho' he/she endeavors to make a point, are extremely difficult to understand?
The waffle surrounding Petrol pricing, and the RBA, offer (if at all) no well based,reasonable solutions. I may be wrong but aren't solutions the reason we discuss the problem rather than the "shoot and kill" verbose and often unsupported postings that predominate?
I readily accept petrol prices are indeed a problem as in certain instances the methodology of RBA. However should you care to re-read posts already submitted you will find quite a number of creditable causes and solutions on offer that have received little if any discussion. You are all to busy pushing your own barrow to the exclusion of reality and others point of view.
Grumpy? Maybe! Frustrated? That's for sure! Still hopeful for the future? Certainly! |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
16/07/2008
2:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Seabird, I suggest that if you are going to attempt the verbose as a putdown to others that you at least learn how to use the correct words.
unintelligible drivel should have been unintelligent drivel, which of course would be somewhat redundant don't you think?
For all our sakes - get a life and stop being so grumpy all the time. |
|
By: seabirdauau
16/07/2008
1:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Please pol_pak do me a favor and re-read your two previous posts as obviously english is not you first language. Should you be able to make sense of points you make I would appreciate you re-submitting in such a manner that I, and I suggest many others, are able to comprehend just what it is you are on about.
When you have done this we should be in a position to respond to your argument. For as I have stated previously you are very prone to unintelligible drivel and usually restricted to the commentaries of others.
For all our sakes - get real. |
|
By: pol_pak
16/07/2008
10:52 am Yahoo! Profile:
pol_pak Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
cry_misty writes: There is no such thing as competition in small community.
This lack of competition is biggest problem in many rural communities - specially those tagged "Aboriginal" where those in positions of power and influence prevented competition from upsetting their rorts.
. |
|
By: pol_pak
16/07/2008
10:48 am Yahoo! Profile:
pol_pak Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Personally IF was forced to declare prices the day before I might get cunning, offer rebates to all my good regular customers so as to avoid constant price fiddling, whilst rewarding those really like to reward.
. |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
16/07/2008
10:00 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Guys, use some logic once in a while? Whether fuelwatch can lower prices is arguable if not doubtable, but what it can do is allow you to compare who is selling at what prices and shop at the cheapest outlet.
As for "Because the local stations compete against each other and if they see one has lowered they either match or go lower. "
If they are released the day before and are published together, how do you propose one company can see what another company is pricing in time to change it's own price? there would be a lag of perhaps a day before they could react. |
|
By: kerrynst
10/07/2008
11:33 am Yahoo! Profile:
kerrynst Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I agree - Even in the city of Adelaide FuelWatch will not lower the price of petrol. In actual fact the price will probably by higher. Why? Because the local stations compete against each other and if they see one has lowered they either match or go lower.
If they have to declare the price the day before they will be reluctant to lower and start charging the correct higher fuel price instead of the discount fuel due to the fuel pricing wars.
Those that by on Thursday the highest price day will be better off but those that buy Tuesday the cheapest priced day and the majority will be worst off! |
|
