Victims of carbon policies - the poor

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/soaring-energy-costs-europeans-p-analysis-519884

http://www.thegwpf.org/renewables-fiasco-doldrums-clouds-bring-green-electricity-production-halt/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/energy-environment/18iht-green18.html?_r=1&

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/04/23/want-skyrocketing-power-prices-just-add-wind-power/

We are facing a global energy crisis directly due to the politicised demands for the reduction of carbon output. When proponents of the anti carbon agenda trivialise the impositions they are placing on others, they invariably fail to mention the drastic / fatal effect their actions have on the most vulnerable.

It would be interesting to see the true statistics, on the number of people who support drastic carbon reduction "just in case carbon is affecting climate", who haven`t even considered any of the negative impacts they are forcing on others.

 

Wow,
never heard such a crap before.
The only reason for climbing energy prices (IMHO) is to rely on the old ways of producing energy (incl. all the downsides to the environment).
While other countries benefit from investing into modern technologies, creating jobs, selling their expertise, we are left behind because our government has decided to turn the wheel back.
One day people will refer to Australia as *once upon a time*......
Reading your lines and links I know why......
Regards

 

I`ll take it one step at a time. Have you got something other than blind faith to substantiate your claim of "The only reason for climbing energy prices (IMHO) is to rely on the old ways of producing energy".?

 

No they have nothing but blind faith.

BUT to you thread, only a moron would believe taxes help the POOR. The fact is they simply want to pretend they have empathy for the others while demonstrating they know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about.

Without even talking about the carbon tax, as soon as you blanket tax the people, you are hurting the poor. Taxes affect the poor far greater than the rich, so obviously, when you tax the poor, you widen the gap between rich and poor and you reduce opportunities for the poor... BUT we know that these people will continue to blindly support policy that actually does what they proclaim they are against…

 

We even see amazingly shallow minded statements like, "the carbon tax creates jobs". This may be true in an insincere literal sense, but in the honest, practical sense, the "jobs" created by the carbon tax are nothing but a drain on the economy.

 

You are really an bunch of terrible carbon deniers....

Once the world has shifted away from traditional currencies, and pricing is set by different standards in respect to energy you fools will still believe in the old days.

What a pity to stay that much behind....
regards

 

And once we eradicate the poor in the world you can feel great about your moral pretence...

 

A Liberal government never has the poor in mind. So what are you on about?

 

You haven`t even acknowledged the effect your policies has had on the poor. Forget the Libs for a moment, and look at your own policies. Please try to give us a straight answer, none of the dodgy stuff.

 

Easy,
if we don't progress/develop, our country will slip into the past. It slowly slowly slips behind. Our products will slip behind. Our education will. Our industry won't be competitive anymore, nothing of it. Not only talking cars, but the whole lot.

One day there won't be any money for the poor, or welfare, because we have fallen so far behind, that we face bankruptcy. We cannot sell things abroad, as no one wants old crap, our soil has long been sold to foreign investors.

There won't be anything left.

The worst thing that can happen to us is abolishing the carbon tax or tools, which force us to move along and to develop ourselves.

Comprende?
regards

 

You haven`t addressed, or even acknowledged the issue. The closest you`ve come to date, has been "A Liberal government never has the poor in mind. So what are you on about?", which misses the point by light years.

Can you actually address the topic?

 

Aussiefree,
you never acknowledges anything I write.
It would be more interesting, what others think. Has Aussiefree a point or not?
To me you appear like a poor blindfolded human being, kidnapped and brainwashed by the Liberal's ideology.
And by that I don't mean a personal attack, honestly.
Regards

 

Personal attack doesn`t bother me anyway. I`m just providing you with opportunities to support your assertions with some facts.

Waiting waaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttting.

 

Yeap,
as I said, I am happy to see what others think, whether my thoughts are useless or whether you just cannot take it.
Regards

 

Take it? You haven`t provided any "it" to take.

 

I must say that while you attack parties for your own pretence you show clearly you have absolutely no ability to understand how policy works.

Again, taxes affect the poor greater than the rich. Ergo if you want taxes to do anything of changing people’s mindset you are simply attacking the poor far greater than the rich. In other words, the carbon tax is detrimental to the poor far greater than the rich. Who introduced a policy that hit the poor detrimentally??? Was it a Liberal government??? No, it was you so called great moral advocates the Greens/ALP alliance. Why did they introduce a policy that attacked the poor far greater than any other part of the community??? Simply to get the top job.

Trying to make this topic party preference demonstrates greatly to the world of your credibility. They fact you pretend to be a caring person and support policy that attacks the poor and removes opportunity shows exactly your true ability. AND while you pretend you great party preference sour grapes attitude, that thing you supposedly stand against (rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer) widens by policy you support.

So, who are you to say what people have in mind, when you clearly show you only interest is in what you want???

 

Just in case you have not noticed, your blame on everything has been already happening. Australia's education is slipping and products as well. As for being competitive, I am assuming you live in your own little world that is far different to the real one. Just in case you did not know Australia has been supporting industry to be competitive by giving them corporate welfare. Want to talk cars??? The government was giving them billions if Australians money to help them be competitive. What is the ALP/Greens answer to further increasing their uncompetitive increases in taxes and wages??? GIVE THEM MORE MONEY. That is not progressive but regressive and only prolonging problems.

While you borrow to simply pay people to be competitive you are actually taking money out of the economy which is used to help the poor, your reducing ability to pay welfare. Australia has always struggled to sell abroad due to many aspects not restricted to price. Now the ALP/Greens have borrowed to simply pay for the upkeep of the economy, how do you think Australia can progress???

I note the opposition NOW admit that, yes Australia needs to tighten its belt and live within its means. They now question if it is time for the hard yards. WELL IT IS. Australia really should have continued the reforms that KEATING started.

As stated the worst thing that could happen is to take away a tax that belts not only industry but the poor into a far worse position because you think it is the best.

SO in other words once you eradicate the poor in Australia your taxes are great for the people... As stated, what a moron...

 

They're victims of decades of bad EU economic policy. There's nothing inherently detrimental to the poor about reducing ghg emissions.

 

taxes are detrimental to the poor... SIMPLE AS THAT. True “There can be nothing inherently detrimental to the poor about reducing GHG emissions”, what can be is HOW you go about it.

People say they think direct action is more expensive, will not work. Well they are not introducing more taxes to pay for it so how can it detrimentally attack the poor??? IT also attacks the problem at the source by attempting to remove the emissions and not simply tax everybody and offset emissions that are actually due to double under that particular scheme. ALL the modelling of Australia’s carbon scheme has shown that emissions will actually increase by the very amount that it is said to reduce. The only way it will reduce emissions is by shifting paper and paying internationally to pretend Australia has reduced its emissions. How do they pay for it??? By introducing taxes that ARE detrimental to the poor... because taxes are detrimental to the poor no matter what they are…

 

The money doesn't just magic from nowhere garry.

What do you think the raising the retirement age, the $6 gp fee, and this income tax levy, etc, are?

The "poor" were never paying for our carbon policies, they were being compensated over and above any price increases, not to mention the carbon policies were grouped with significant tax cuts and pension increases.

"Direct action" is absolutely more expensive, and since the spending is capped at a relatively low level, it's extremely unlikely that they will meet their emissions reductions targets.

It's far cheaper to spend a couple of hundred dollars in Cambodia or Nepal to prevent people chopping down trees and burning them inefficiently for cooking and warmth than it is to, for instance, subsidise solar panels or biodiesel, etc.

 

Yes, taxes but not to pay for policy that will continue to increase. IF you doubt the continued increase then you obviously don't understand how this carbon tax (or policy if you like) works

Really shows you don't understand anything about what it is to be poor and how taxes work. Here is a clue, when you tax people then supposedly take away the low income support benefits in their returns ($1500) do you really think they are being compensated "over and above"

Is it??? That seems to be a factual claim... got evidence that it is “absolutely more expensive”???OR is that based upon the media and party bias information??? I also note that the word unlikely is used because you don't really know...

So in other words, it is cheaper to actually do nothing but shift paper around and send money overseas which will reduce NOTHING of emissions than it is to actually pay industry to reduce REAL emissions??? So Australia should just ignore the impacts it has on the poor because it is cheaper??? Please, don't tell me you advocate the eradication of the poor to support policy you agree with. I hold you in higher regard than that.

 

Do you ever think about what you say, this is garbage. Of course saving the forests will help reduce CO2 emissions, only an idiot would say it won't. The way things are going, there will hardly be a forest left, tell me, what happens then?

 

So HOW does trees reduce CO2 emissions smart arse??? Before you start with sequestering it and all that crap the fact is it does NOTHING to reduce emissions. You are going to try and say it reduces CO2 in the atmosphere which is the same as reducing it. IT IS NOT.

ONLY an ignorant fool would suggest that by planting a tree (which all parties say) you are reducing emissions. You are NOT; all you are doing is saying it reduces the impact of the emissions. When you save a tree you are not reducing any emissions, especially when you INCREASE you emissions which are exactly what ALL modelling of this carbon tax states is going to happen.

Before one comments on a statement, one should be aware of what they are saying. Perhaps the best question is do you actually use the grey matter you retain between the ears. You are talking chalk and cheese which a highly educated person would be able to see…

 

If only I was as smart an ******** as you, ok then .... reduce the atmospheric carbon.... now try to make an intelligent response if possible.

 

But..but... aren't trees part of the NATURAL CARBON CYCLE?? If so, as I understand it, they grow and suck carbon out of the atmosphere and turn it into wood. Then they die and rot or burn and put the carbon back. How can they reduce atmospheric carbon if they are just continualy recycling it???