Carbon Pricing (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

democracy

when

it

suits

me

 

[Lentern]

democracy

when

it

suits

me

What would be anti democratic is these folk who want to take up pitchforks or who call on the governor general to dissolve the parliament which was democratically elected by the Australian people, because on one policy issue they disagree.

 

[SylviaB]

democracy

when

it

suits

Lentern

 

[Lentern]

Well done now have a biscuit.

 

[cosmo kramer]

demoncracy 666

 

[abbeyroad]

What would be anti democratic is these folk who want to take up pitchforks or who call on the governor general to dissolve the parliament which was democratically elected by the Australian people, because on one policy issue they disagree.

"elected by the Australian people"
hahahaha wut since when did an arbitrary percentage of the population become the australian people?
lol you're australian when you agree with me, unaustralian when you don't

it's anti-democratic when you seek to dissolve the parliament democratically hahaha what logic is this sounds like woman's logic to me

 

[Lentern]

"elected by the Australian people"
hahahaha wut since when did an arbitrary percentage of the population become the australian people?
lol you're australian when you agree with me, unaustralian when you don't

it's anti-democratic when you seek to dissolve the parliament democratically hahaha what logic is this sounds like woman's logic to me

The governor general is the prime ministers appointee and a relic from the former prime minister at that, she has absolutely no business withdrawing the commission of a prime minister who commands the confidence of both houses of parliament.

 

[abbeyroad]

The governor general is the prime ministers appointee and a relic from the former prime minister at that, she has absolutely no business withdrawing the commission of a prime minister who commands the confidence of both houses of parliament.

if a majority of the people wanted to dissolve the parliament which one of the following is anti-democratic the people who seek to dissolve the parliament democratically or the parliament who goes against the wishes of its constituents by refusing to dissolve itself?

 

[Lentern]

if a majority of the people wanted to dissolve the parliament which one of the following is anti-democratic the people who seek to dissolve the parliament democratically or the parliament who goes against the wishes of its constituents by refusing to dissolve itself?

Opinion polling is speculative, in 2010 a proper vote was held that these 226 good men and women are those which the voters wanted to serve the next parliamentary term.

 

[Rafy]

Nielsen asked a carbon price question:

"The carbon plan has been given an unequivocal thumbs down, with 56 per cent of respondents opposed to a carbon price, 52 per cent rejecting the government's carbon price and compensation package, and 53 per cent believing it will leave them worse off."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/labo...n-tax-bites-20110717-1hkbr.html#ixzz1SN58PtWI

 

[abbeyroad]

Opinion polling is speculative, in 2010 a proper vote was held that these 226 good men and women are those which the voters wanted to serve the next parliamentary term.

jesus I'm not talking about opinion polling you dumb fuck stop with your fucking useless ignoratio elenchi. when people fucking actively seek to dissolve the parliament democratically they'll do it through a referendum not a fucking poll

and apparently voters can't change their minds in between elections ahahahahahahaha

fuck you're almost as bad as slide and shadowdude

 

[fakermaker]

Nielsen asked a carbon price question:

"The carbon plan has been given an unequivocal thumbs down, with 56 per cent of respondents opposed to a carbon price, 52 per cent rejecting the government's carbon price and compensation package, and 53 per cent believing it will leave them worse off."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/labo...n-tax-bites-20110717-1hkbr.html#ixzz1SN58PtWI

SMH is biased as fuck...

They know who to ask to get results

 

[Blastus]

Oh, look at that...another BOS poll that is completely dominated by conservative bullshit...how original.

Most people here don't buy the government line on anything.

Let's get the facts straight:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2794652.html
"Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax," warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. "Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living."

So firstly, if your making 110k+ and cant afford an extra 9.90 in the possible progression to cleaner energy, you can go fuck yourself!

So a huge amount of welfare churn so companies buy carbon credits from overseas? Smart idea.

http://www.celsias.com/article/australias-long-awaited-carbon-tax-details-finally/
"Initially the tax will only hit about 500 companies.

About 60% of Australia’s carbon pollution will be covered. The tax will not apply to agriculture. Agriculture is about 16% of Australian emissions. It will also not apply to petrol or light on road vehicles. Transport fuel is excluded but heavy transport will start paying carbon tax in 2014"

For the time being at least, you dont have to worry about shit...The top 500 businesses will lose money, or be forced to clean your air.

'clean your air'. Ugh. What an intellectually dishonest argument. Also the top 500 companies won't 'lose money' you moron, they'll pass on costs which is why people will be worse off. You made an argument about compensation above...

Also, it isnt even really a tax, but rather a governmental scheme to get companies to switch to (and fund) cleaner energy systems such as nuclear.

Except nuclear is strictly and clearly off the table when the greens control the balance of power because they're hysterically anti-nuclear. Also nuclear will never be a viable industry in this country, we don't have the construction or knowledge base to expand or develop it.

Think about it like this:

Bob owns a business. He makes 1mill profit a year. Since coal and uranium is so abundant in Aus, he gets it dirt cheap and thus, relies heavily on it. Govt says: "Bob, your using too much resources, omitting too much CO2, and making too much money...this year you'll only make $700k, we'll keep the 300k as a penalty".

Bob is accustomed to his current 1mill lifestyle and is like, fuck that shit...He decides to increase his costs by 10%, hoping to increase his profits. Customs stop buying his shit and Bob starts losing money. Bob then realizes, that he can make more money by using the more expensive Nuclear or renewable energies, if it means that the government will fuck off. Thus Bob invests his money in these alternative energies. Meanwhile, the government has been receiving a tidy little profit from their tax and decide to invest in the development of new energy systems.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA ARE YOU KIDDING ME ARE YOU KIDDING ME IF HE WOULD SAVE MONEY BY SWITCHING TO RENEWABLES *EVERYONE* WOULD BE USING THEM. Renewables are on average 100 - 200% more expensive than current coal generated power.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Now while the development of and migration to these new industries is depicted by the media as something to be scared of...They will inevitably create new jobs for the development, construction, maintenance, etc...

Hence, the entire scheme is a fucking win for everyone.

Green jobs have cost jobs everywhere they've been 'implemented'. This is just partisan bullshit.


Fuck you need to lay off huffing solvents.

 

[Blastus]

SMH is biased as fuck...

They know who to ask to get results

Are you shitting me

is the SMH part of the reich wing media

fuck a duck

 

[Lentern]

jesus I'm not talking about opinion polling you dumb fuck stop with your fucking useless ignoratio elenchi. when people fucking actively seek to dissolve the parliament democratically they'll do it through a referendum not a fucking poll

and apparently voters can't change their minds in between elections ahahahahahahaha

fuck you're almost as bad as slide and shadowdude

If you're not basing your perception that people want a change of government, on polling than you're doing it on anecdotal evidence which, you know, is retarded.

 

[fakermaker]

Also the top 500 companies won't 'lose money' you moron, they'll pass on costs which is why people will be worse off.

Obviously, and when the people stop buying the product/as much of it...how do you think they will respond? They will seek alternative energy

Except nuclear is strictly and clearly off the table when the greens control the balance of power because they're hysterically anti-nuclear. Also nuclear will never be a viable industry in this country, we don't have the construction or knowledge base to expand or develop it.

I was making the argument for cleaner energy...It doesnt matter if that energy is nuclear, wind, solar..my argument is still valid.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA ARE YOU KIDDING ME ARE YOU KIDDING ME IF HE WOULD SAVE MONEY BY SWITCHING TO RENEWABLES *EVERYONE* WOULD BE USING THEM. Renewables are on average 100 - 200% more expensive than current coal generated power.

Read my fucking post.

1) Govt tax companies. Money goes toward new alternative energy industries
2) Companies forced to bring cost of their product up.
3) People stop buying.
4) Companies forced to stop using carbon-emitting energies and move to the alternative energies from step 1

Are you shitting me

is the SMH part of the reich wing media

fuck a duck

I cant read the context of your post.

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or what...but yes, the SMH is conservatively biased.

 

[Lentern]

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or what...but yes, the SMH is conservatively biased.

wha????

 

[Azure]

Yeah, what?

 

[byebyebye]

Most people here don't buy the government line on anything.



So a huge amount of welfare churn so companies buy carbon credits from overseas? Smart idea.




'clean your air'. Ugh. What an intellectually dishonest argument. Also the top 500 companies won't 'lose money' you moron, they'll pass on costs which is why people will be worse off. You made an argument about compensation above...



Except nuclear is strictly and clearly off the table when the greens control the balance of power because they're hysterically anti-nuclear. Also nuclear will never be a viable industry in this country, we don't have the construction or knowledge base to expand or develop it.



AHAHAHHAHAHAHA ARE YOU KIDDING ME ARE YOU KIDDING ME IF HE WOULD SAVE MONEY BY SWITCHING TO RENEWABLES *EVERYONE* WOULD BE USING THEM. Renewables are on average 100 - 200% more expensive than current coal generated power.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.




Green jobs have cost jobs everywhere they've been 'implemented'. This is just partisan bullshit.


Fuck you need to lay off huffing solvents.

???

what?

can taxes be ultimately be passed on from the producer to the consumer? The cost of production does not dictate the prices.

 

[Blastus]

Obviously, and when the people stop buying the product/as much of it...how do you think they will respond? They will seek alternative energy

which will cost more otherwise they would use it now

I was making the argument for cleaner energy...It doesnt matter if that energy is nuclear, wind, solar..my argument is still valid.

which costs more otherwise they would use it now. It still costs more under the carbon price.

Read my fucking post.

1) Govt tax companies. Money goes toward new alternative energy industries

picking winners good luck with that

2) Companies forced to bring cost of their product up.
3) People stop buying.
4) Companies forced to stop using carbon-emitting energies and move to the alternative energies from step 1

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen because again alternative energies COST more than carbon-rich ones. FUCK. This tax does not increase the price on carbon to a level that renewables are cheaper than carbon-rich forms of energy.

I cant read the context of your post.

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or what...but yes, the SMH is conservatively biased.

you're a fucking moron