Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

carbon pricing not carbon tax « Previous | |Next »
June 12, 2012

Why isn't there some sort of questioning of the misleading and deceptive campaign being run by News Ltd and the Liberal Opposition that the carbon pricing, which will be introduced on July, will see increased power bills to small businesses and households of around 25%. Secondly, why does the Canberra media gallery continue to call the pricing of carbon a carbon tax?

MoirAgrimnews.jpg Alan Moir

The policy is to put a price on carbon because it is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. It is putting a price on the carbon pollution that Australia’s largest polluters produce. Such a policy aims to create a incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution, by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating.

It is not a tax on households or small businesses. The emitters of carbon pollution, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, including coal and petroleum, will pay per tonne of carbon they release into the atmosphere.

News Ltd’s coverage of the Government’s carbon price policy has been so negative and one-dimensional that some papers in the stable are misleading the public by doing partisan campaigning.There is a deep and pervasive reluctance amongst the Canberra media gallery to critique their own power to influence public opinion and debate and to criticize the way that many of these journalists use their power to engage in systematic deception.

So where is that Finkelstein review of our media, which recommended much tougher regulation for the print media. Tougher media standards is needed, since newspaper self-regulation is an utter failure in ensuring the media is accountable and responsible for its abuse of power.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:40 AM | | Comments (12)


Gary, Yes it is a carbon price.

The Brisbane Lord Mayor has just been on the news saying Brisbane rates will rise $36 because of the carbon price.

This is the point where it becomes a TAX.

The price of cheese increases because water has become more expensive and that is a tax?

A few months ago Bob Brown wrote a letter to the OO.
They published it.
But changed a word and presented it as his word.
His 'carbon package' was transformed into 'carbon tax'.


I see yr point but mine is not about cheese.
Mine is not whether a point of view is right or wrong.
My point is simple.
If electricity prices rise because of the the carbon pricing and are passed on to the consumer( regardless whether they are offset by government handouts) the price rise is a CHARGE.

I remind you that my comment relates to the Brisbane Lord Mayors statement today.
So if the council passes on the $36 it will be a TAX.

A few points.
1.I wouldn't necessarily trust the Brissy LM's numbers. Lots of people and organizations have been coming up with all sorts of numbers and frequently they have been very shonky, the people and the numbers I mean. ACAA had to debunk such a claim by someone recently, you should be able to find such via google.
Some have even claimed present prices have gone up due to the carbon price despite it not even operating yet [Pure Poison at Crikey had one such example].
The media has been and will continue to spread panic and hysteria.
2. Nevertheless the point of the pricing is to increase the cost of carbon.
That is the aim of the price, to reflect the cost of producing carbon, a cost previously hidden and paid for by our society but which will be now be transparently part of the cost of carbon production by those who produce it[well some of the biggest producers anyway].
3.And those carbon producers will pass on the cost to consumers....but as part of the price of their product.
4. So consumers [eg Brissy council] can switch to non carbon, therefore cheaper [than before], comparative products.
5. Such as, in the case of electricity, rewnewables eg solar. My solar panels are ALREADY producing carbon free [well, much less] electricity at around the same price as dirty coal electricity. As more consumers switch to cheaper non carbon products we will produce less carbon.

That is the aim of the price.
Its the whole point of the exercise.
We can escape the consequences of the higher than previous price of carbon by not buying it.
6.Producers of carbon now have an incentive to decrease their production. Because it will cost more and be less attractive to consumers they will have to switch to cheaper production [carbon wise] methods or suffer. And its better that its them than the society as a whole as is the present case.

7. In the meantime, during the transition phase, the public will be compensated.

MOST people will not have their costs increased thanks to tax [real taxes] decreases that are a part of the scheme.
MOST Brissy council rate payers will receive enough, [or even extra] money to cover the costs of the pricing of carbon.

To focus on the costs of carbon pricing and ignore the benefits and compensations is to tell only a part of the story.

I see that you are well up on the issue.
We are on different waves here.

Going back to the title of this post

"carbon pricing not carbon tax"

Looking at the definition of the word TAX in the dictionary.
Then accepting that Local Government is Government.

Then accepting that some local governments like Brisbane will pass on this cost to rate payers.
Then there will be a consumption tax.

At this point I should add that as business feels that it needs to pass onto the consumer any rises in their costs brought about by the carbon pricing thus will G.S.T on their goods and services rise.

So in closing i would like to state that whether you choose to call it a Carbon Tax (C.T) or Carbon Pricing Related Taxation.( C.P.R.T ) is well...

Perhaps being a Carbon Tax Denialist (C.T.D)

more fool you for believing the scare mongering from the Brisbane City Council---their energy costs is under 5% and probably more like 2-3%. They could save 5-10% of their energy costs and more just by small no-cost behaviour changes (eg., turning lights off or power points off when not needed) some much more (insulation) It's called energy efficiency.

Either they are too that is too lazy to make the easy changes that wipe out the effects of the carbon “tax”, or it looks like they are using the "carbon tax" to slip through a big increase in rates.

Nice to see yr not a denialist.

We will see in time how it plays out.

I see that there has been a rise in The Green vote now that bob is doing his I'm leaving speeches. Perhaps environment issues will be back and people wont care about prices rising.

Houseprices can't keep going up. It's just a matter of time before they come down.

The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in December forecast that the carbon tax should increase councils' costs by just 0.4 per cent in the first year.
For most part, they will pay the carbon price because of their methane emissions through decaying organic waste at rubbish tips.

That was nice of them to say that.
I guess that settles it.