Originally posted by telerionElectrical devices may increase in price but the savings in electricity costs will more than make up for it. The technology already exists and is affordable, but there is little incentive for manufacturers to make more efficient products when people look at the price and not the Energy Star label. If people crunched the numbers they would realize that they would save money by paying the extra 10 bucks but they don't. People don't do math when they make a purchase for the most part. They need to be helped along by regulation.
You could mandate that electrical devices be more efficient. Assuming that there are easy technological fixes that will make them sufficiently more efficient, it would still likely cause the price to rise so it's not going to be a free lunch.
Another issue with just making things more efficient is that it just reduces the private marginal cost of fuel c ...[text shortened]... buted in many ways (some proposals have built in credits to reduce the burden for the poor).
I don't even know what the heck you are saying in the 2nd paragraph. Do you even know? I can't make any sense of it.
Oh, so the rich get a free pass on more carbon in the atmosphere. Lucky them. Where is that tax money going? Do you even know? Maybe it will go to military spending. If you don't know, chances are it will. I didn't really have to tell you that, did I?
Perhaps you can show these proposals you refer to that will reduce these burdens to the poor. I have not seen them and I'll bet that most people have not either. We are all waiting.
Originally posted by sh76If CO2 emissions are really a problem. The taxes are just another method of extracting more blood from the taxpayer. The cap and trade would not have reduced emmissions but would have made some people a lot of money.
In the US, there's a gas guzzler tax, but the cap and trade bill seems to be on ice for the moment.
Obviously, Australia in a vacuum wouldn't matter much, but precedents are important so that other countries can follow suit.
Carbon taxes can work. Economic incentives always have the potential to work. Personally, I'd rather see more of an emphasis on enco ative sources of energy is the only viable long term solution to the CO2 emissions problem.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Electrical devices may increase in price but the savings in electricity costs will more than make up for it. The technology already exists and is affordable, but there is little incentive for manufacturers to make more efficient products when people look at the price and not the Energy Star label. If people crunched the numbers they would realize that they would save money by paying the extra 10 bucks but they don't.
If you say so . . . of course a carbon tax would help these consumers realize what a great mistake they are making. Plus it would reward the ones who figure it out sooner.
People don't do math when they make a purchase for the most part. They need to be helped along by regulation.
I'm going to try to save this statement. I have a hunch it will come back to bite you sometime down the road.
I don't even know what the heck you are saying in the 2nd paragraph. Do you even know? I can't make any sense of it.
This doesn't surprise me, and of course I know. It's a basic principle from Econ 101. Let's use cars to facilitate the explanation. Let's say for the sake of argument that we want to reduce the amount of gasoline being consumed by American drivers. One way would be to institute regulations mandating that cars get a lot more miles to the gallon. Another way would be to increase the price of gasoline with a tax. In the first scenario, people end up with more fuel-efficient cars. This means that compared to before the regulation, it is less costly for people to drive additional miles. For the same reason people reduce their vacations, carpool to work, and cut down on their driving when gas prices spike, making driving cheaper has the opposite effect, thereby increasing demand. This is why I say that the net effect of the regulation may actually increase fuel consumption. It depends upon the price elasticity of demand for gasoline. Unfortunately, it is very hard because of technology constraints to adjust MPG regulations to compensate for highly elastic demand (the case where people drive a lot more because of the decrease in fuel cost).
In contrast, a carbon tax makes additional miles more expensive. This causes people to look for ways to conserve on fuel usage. It is also nearly costless to change the tax rate to adjust for price elasticity.
Oh, so the rich get a free pass on more carbon in the atmosphere. Lucky them. Where is that tax money going? Do you even know? Maybe it will go to military spending. If you don't know, chances are it will. I didn't really have to tell you that, did I?
Actually by the very definition of a tax, they explicitly DO NOT get a free pass.
Perhaps you can show these proposals you refer to that will reduce these burdens to the poor. I have not seen them and I'll bet that most people have not either. We are all waiting.
Gosh, I hope you didn't have to wait too long! Here's the one that I had in mind. Careful. It's not some tawdry political pamphlet or conspiracy site. You may be forced to think!
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9134/04-24-Cap_Trade_Testimony.1.1.shtml
Originally posted by WajomaYour point being that Australia is too inconsequential relative to the rest of the world to make a difference, as per the OP's original question?
All those arguing about the merits of which carbon tax/punishment scheme, please relate to us:
What difference will the Gilliard tax make to the climate?
Nope. No country should take the lead on this issue. In fact, recognizing this dilemma, Australia should have an "F it" subsidy. Pollute air and water. Over harvest natural resources. I mean that's what China and India will do anyway right? The rest of the developed world is running headlong into massive debt overhang. How about Australia borrow from China to fund a century long fuel holiday? I mean if the world is f---ed, why not speed it along it's way?
Look, international coordination is certainly a big problem for reducing world emissions. That doesn't mean that a carbon tax isn't the ideal policy. Most of these people posting in this thread still don't understand even the basic principles of a Pigouvian tax or of market-based solutions, like cap-and-trade. Let's get passed that before dealing with whether Australia wants to pay for its behavior or be a dead beat.
Originally posted by telerionYes, but if we screw up the Chinese economy with such carbon taxes then who is the rest of the world going to borrow from? :'(
[b]Your point being that Australia is too inconsequential relative to the rest of the world to make a difference, as per the OP's original question?
Nope. No country should take the lead on this issue. In fact, recognizing this dilemma, Australia should have an "F it" subsidy. Pollute air and water. Over harvest natural resources. I mean that's what Chi ...[text shortened]... d a century long fuel holiday? I mean if the world is f---ed, why not speed it along it's way?
Originally posted by telerionSo essentially you throw a little "save the world party" every time gas prices go up?
This doesn't surprise me, and of course I know. It's a basic principle from Econ 101. Let's use cars to facilitate the explanation. Let's say for the sake of argument that we want to reduce the amount of gasoline being consumed by American drivers. One way would be to institute regulations mandating that cars get a lot more miles to the gallon. Another wa ...[text shortened]... ly elastic demand (the case where people drive a lot more because of the decrease in fuel cost).
All just so much hot air and as such should be subject to a tax.
Until those that claim a CO2 tax/cap should be implemented, thery must present:
1/ Some facts as to the effect that their taxes/caps will have on the climate, until then their tax/cap claims belong in the bunkum, hoax catergory as Bachmann correctly asserts.
2/ These taxes/caps are supposedly to deter bad behaviour, the underlying premise is that the price of bad behaviour will be raised and people will act badly less. Until those promoting such taxes also advocate a removal of taxes on good things (i.e. good behaviour) then they are just hypocrites full of contradiction and 'cognitve dissonace' (a little ditty, fast becoming a cliche'😉
Originally posted by whodeyNot at all. I'm acting under the presumption that some reduction in emissions is necessary, and then asking what is the best way to achieve that.
So essentially you throw a little "save the world party" every time gas prices go up?
Carbon taxes and market-based cap-and-trade are both excellent ways to do this. So far the criticisms that I heard of it coming out of this forum haven't even been accurate characterizations of the policies, but rather out of context phrases from either political pamphlets/websites or conversations from anti-tax TV/radio shows/friends. Wajoma's allusion to the international coordination dilemma (I may be giving him more credit than he is due) not included.
Originally posted by telerionWell I guess it's worked so well for Europe the US needs to do it as well, kinda like health care. All we need to do on any issue is just ask what Europe would do and do it. In fact, why not just join the Europian Union? Then again, with all that is going on with Greece I'm not sure they would want us around knowing that the US is on the same path.
Not at all. I'm acting under the presumption that some reduction in emissions is necessary, and then asking what is the best way to achieve that.
Carbon taxes and market-based cap-and-trade are both excellent ways to do this. So far the criticisms that I heard of it coming out of this forum haven't even been accurate characterizations of the policie ...[text shortened]... rom either political pamphlets/websites or conversations from anti-tax TV/radio shows/friends.
Originally posted by telerionJust as I thought, you don't know, or the difference is so embarassingly small (especially when offset against the effort, resources required to promote and police it i.e. more carbon) that you'd wear out your '0' key trying to relate it.
Your point being that Australia is too inconsequential relative to the rest of the world to make a difference, as per the OP's original question?
Nope. No country should take the lead on this issue. In fact, recognizing this dilemma, Australia should have an "F it" subsidy. Pollute air and water. Over harvest natural resources. I mean that's what Chi before dealing with whether Australia wants to pay for its behavior or be a dead beat.
Originally posted by Wajoma1) Has some merit. When any specific carbon tax legislation or CandT legislation comes up for a vote, it should include an estimate of its effect on emissions. The rest of your point is total exaggeration.
All just so much hot air and as such should be subject to a tax.
Until those that claim a CO2 tax/cap should be implemented, thery must present:
1/ Some facts as to the effect that their taxes/caps will have on the climate, until then their tax/cap claims belong in the bunkum, hoax catergory as Bachmann correctly asserts.
2/ These taxes/caps are suppo ...[text shortened]... ites full of contradiction and 'cognitve dissonace' (a little ditty, fast becoming a cliche'😉
2) Unless demand is perfectly inelastic with respect to price and no one is borrowing constrained, taxes do deter behavior (bad or otherwise). The remainder of your post makes no sense.
Originally posted by whodeyReally? I thought you were above this sort of illogical junk.
Well I guess it's worked so well for Europe the US needs to do it as well, kinda like health care. All we need to do on any issue is just ask what Europe would do and do it. In fact, why not just join the Europian Union? Then again, with all that is going on with Greece I'm not sure they would want us around knowing that the US is on the same path.