Carbon Tax to become Law in Australia

[check_status]

Carbon tax will not increase grocery shopping bills, says industry group

THE food processing industry says shoppers will not suffer any price rises under the proposed carbon tax because the impact will be borne by manufacturers.
The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has repeatedly used the Australian Food and Grocery Council's earlier estimate of a 3 to 5 per cent price hike on food due to the carbon tax during his anti-carbon tax campaign warning of imminent price increases.
But releasing new modelling yesterday, the council said the impact would not hit household shopping bills, because the highly competitive food retailers would not allow the price rises to flow through.
''It is very unlikely food processors would be able to pass on any rises in costs in this depressed retailing market and with a supermarket price war underway,'' the chief executive of the council, Kate Carnell, said.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/carbon-tax-will-not-increase-grocery-shopping-bills-says-industry-group-20111013-1ln4g.html


Want to know more about carbon taxes? What is the carbon tax and how is it being used to squeeze you dry?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/235716/trading-on-thin-air

"The finite nature of carbon credits and absence of a physical commodity leave it particularly vulnerable to speculation." - U.S. House Representative Bart Stupak

[1714138220]

1714138220

[1714138220]

1714138220

[1714138220]

1714138220

[check_status]

Couple quotes from the documentary:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controling money and its issuance." - President James Madison

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the private International Banking House of Rothschild

[TECSHARE]

Couple quotes from the documentary:

"Let me issue and control ALL FORMS OF PRODUCTION and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the private International Banking House of Rothschild

I fixed that for you to fit the current subject matter better.

[TECSHARE]

Related story: http://occupycorporatism.com/un-creates-new-more-powerful-global-environmental-agency/

[steelhouse]

Finally a responsible country.

[TECSHARE]

Finally a responsible country.

You are being sold a bill of goods. This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with international government, taxation, the destruction of national sovereignty and the global economy. Its called cognitive dissonance, look it up. problem  - reaction - solution. Create a problem either real or imagined, the people react in mass, and then the same people who created the problem act as saviors and introduce a "solution" which is some thing the people would have otherwise never agreed to.

[asdf]

Finally a responsible country.

You best be trolling.

This is a non solution to a non problem that gives the government more power and more tax.

The carbon tax is a piece of shit!

[cytokine]

The carbon tax is a piece of sh%t...

Agreed. Just an excuse to sheer the sheep

[herzmeister]

yup, without the military industrial complex, there would be no dependeny on fossil oils and plastic. Because renewable resources would naturally always be preferred by markets:

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXW-W_F2MQ8
* http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html

[FirstAscent]

yup, without the military industrial complex, there would be no dependeny on fossil oils and plastic. Because renewable resources would naturally always be preferred by markets:

Really? I mean, gosh darn, really? Always?

What about:

Chinese black market for Sumatran rhino horns.

Blue whales in the mid 20th century.

Amazon rain forests.

Old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.

Ivory.

Tiger pelts.

Those resources might be renewable in one form or another, without factoring in timescales and proper management, but it's the free markets which have decimated them. Here's a little factoid for you: the more scarce a resource becomes, the pricier it becomes, and the effort to harvest the last remaining amount of them is ramped up, with increased competition and increased technology to find the last one.

[herzmeister]

So? I can't really picture the strawman that you seem to be attacking here, as I don't really disagree with what you said here.

(Though I admit I used "always" as a simplifying weasel word, let's say the extraction of fossil oil would no longer be economical as of today compared to renewable resources like hemp, were it not for the military industrial complex sustaining it because it's an important part of their power game).

An ethical and ecologic awareness and conscience concerning the rain forest etc is a factor that is independent from the economic structure of a society. A planned economic system might deplete their resources in a similar way as well (and in fact history showed they did). In a free market, aware parties can buy what they want to protect.

[FirstAscent]

An ethical and ecologic awareness and conscience concerning the rain forest etc is a factor that is independent from the economic structure of a society.

That is an interesting statement. And I think it's diametrically opposite from the truth. In actuality, it is precisely ethical and ecological awareness which should be guiding the economic structure of society. There are no other guiding forces which can accomplish anything but destruction.

Truly free markets will exploit inefficiencies and find the least costly way to put a profit in someone's pocket near term.

Constrained and regulated free markets driven by ethical and ecological awareness will yield sustainable solutions.

All of the following matter: net energy input to the Earth, microorganisms, trophic cascades, soil, water, atmosphere, ecosystems, edge effects, feedback loops, riparian zones, natural capital, biodiversity.

[herzmeister]

If we're 100% psychopaths, then the economic structure which we'd use to destroy ourselves would not matter much.

If we're only 1% psychopaths, then it's more like a game of probability. You want to centralize power and trust that those in executive position are incorruptible. However, history shows they're rather not.

[FirstAscent]

If we're 100% psychopaths, then the economic structure which we'd use to destroy ourselves would not matter much.

If we're only 1% psychopaths, then it's more like a game of probability. You want to centralize power and trust that those in executive position are incorruptible. However, history shows they're rather not.

Your approach is backwards. Forget about whether the solution is centralized or decentralized. Too many here hold fast to their political mantras, and insist that a method which upholds their political values must magically be the right solution.

The problems are enormously complex. The best that can be done is to understand the dynamics of the system, mostly by immersing oneself deep into the mechanisms that make it work. The more you understand, the better you'll be to evaluate what might be a good solution - centralized or decentralized.

[herzmeister]

nothing quite like ending a discussion with an appeal to authority. 

Facing today's "problems" that are "enormously complex" and "understand[ing] the dynamics of the system, mostly by immersing oneself deep into the mechanisms that make it work" is arguably the job of politicians. Apparently they don't do it very well.

[FirstAscent]

nothing quite like ending a discussion with an appeal to authority. 

Facing today's "problems" that are "enormously complex" and "understand[ing] the dynamics of the system, mostly by immersing oneself deep into the mechanisms that make it work" is arguably the job of politicians. Apparently they don't do it very well.

I would say it's the job of biologists, ecologists, social scientists, and computer scientists, plus (and it's a big plus)...

A conduit to both the public and the politicians to allow the information the above discover and learn to be factored into decision making.

[asdf]

nothing quite like ending a discussion with an appeal to authority. 

Facing today's "problems" that are "enormously complex" and "understand[ing] the dynamics of the system, mostly by immersing oneself deep into the mechanisms that make it work" is arguably the job of politicians. Apparently they don't do it very well.

These enormously complex problems can only be solved by the market through the price mechanism. Price is determined be the subjective valuations of the individuals that make up the marketplace. So, in a free market, people get exactly what they think has the most value.

Carbon already has a cost. clean air already has a value. It's the government regulatory framework that prevents a price being set for carbon (limited liability of corporations. government licensing/sanctioning of polluting industries, etc). This is typical of the government: 1. make laws which hamstring the market causing resource miss-allocations and negative side effects. 2. make another law to fix the problems created by the first law.

[FirstAscent]

These enormously complex problems can only be solved by the market through the price mechanism. Price is determined be the subjective valuations of the individuals that make up the marketplace. So, in a free market, people get exactly what they think has the most value.

The above statement is so utterly naive it blows my mind. Actually, no, I come to expect it, especially from the membership here. The free market does not accurately price natural capital, and as a consequence, does not accurately price any derivative products based on natural capital.

The subjective individuals that make up the marketplace are borrowing from the future with no intention or plan of paying it back. The free market is failing.

[Bitcoin Oz]

The carbon tax is a transfer of wealth to Goldman Sachs et al.

[asdf]

These enormously complex problems can only be solved by the market through the price mechanism. Price is determined be the subjective valuations of the individuals that make up the marketplace. So, in a free market, people get exactly what they think has the most value.

The above statement is so utterly naive it blows my mind. Actually, no, I come to expect it, especially from the membership here. The free market does not accurately price natural capital, and as a consequence, does not accurately price any derivative products based on natural capital.

How does it not? Supply meets demand and a price is set. What other price is there for natural capital that would be more "accurate"? Why is natural capital different from capital in general, in this regard?

The subjective individuals that make up the marketplace are borrowing from the future with no intention or plan of paying it back. The free market is failing.

This has everything to do with government policies. Artificial interest rates, government spending, etc. To blame freedom for this is... naive.