Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If carbon taxes work why did australia scrap its carbon tax?
All carbon tax plans are not equal.
The reason is politics, stupidity and possibly corruption.....
Australia scraps carbon tax after pressure from country's coal industry
Tony Abbott, Australia's prime minister, has scrapped Australia's controversial tax on carbon emissions – despite warnings by scientists that he was ignoring the evidence on climate change and pursuing a "perfect storm of stupidity".
Scientists, economists and environmentalists largely denounced the move, with many saying it was a "tragedy" and that Mr Abbott's new plan to directly pay polluters to reduce emissions is a waste of money that will fail to meet Australia's targeted emission cuts. Tony Abbott scraps Australia's carbon tax - Telegraph
If carbon taxes work why did australia scrap its carbon tax?
Australia isn't getting 86% of it's electric from hydro, electric generation form fossil fuels is by far the biggest thing that would be affected by such a tax. It would drive up the cost of everything.
Australia isn't getting 86% of it's electric from hydro, electric generation form fossil fuels is by far the biggest thing that would be affected by such a tax. It would drive up the cost of everything.
So what? If it's revenue neutral, as it is in BC. all tax collected is returned to the tax payers.
Because renewable do not work on a large scale to much money for too little power.
You leave out private sector innovation.
They don't work now, but like any new or developing technology, they need to be given time to grow. Nuclear is unpopular but in the short-term it could be clean and efficient. In the longer-term, many futurists/scientists have sketched ideas for ways that the sun can be a huge source of energy for this planet.
I agree that the private sector may have a role to play, but there is also financial incentive to keep going with the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
What subsidies? Can you be specific?
They range from direct exploration and development subsidies, to myriad tax breaks on certain things that aren't usually available to regular companies, to price "adjustments." A lot of the thinking behind these oil subsidies does seem to make a lot of sense, but then there's also strong arguments for subsidizing growth in other sources of energy.
[quote=NJBest;36076029]When you say "no pollution" but use a polluting source of energy, it's contradictory.
The volt is only cheaper for you because you drive a lot. The Prius is cheaper for me because I don't drive nearly as much as you everyday. A prius can run off of electricity long enough for me to get to and from work (or the train station when I have to go to NYC). And it costs less than a volt.
The fact that you drive so much is quite bad for the environment.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't even make sense much less have anything to do with the topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
